Youtube looses its Legal Protections as a Internet medium Provider.

Share with:

Youtube has decided to pick sides in the Free Flowing battle of American Politics. Be damned to Law. Be damned the business model. Youtube has shown that it is a Extremist Left Wing Publisher and no longer deserves legal protection afforded it by the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

In the name of preventing Hate it shows it’s extreme hate for Conservative Content Providers. What they have done is accuse all conservative content providers as being racists or even worse. This can not stand.

Either YouTube is a Internet Provider or it is a Publisher. It can not be both. As stated in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

What is Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (CDA)?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) is a piece of Internet legislation. It provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service who publish information provided by others. An immunity clause in the Act states that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In analyzing the availability of the immunity offered by this provision, courts generally apply a three-prong test. A defendant must satisfy each of the three prongs to be immune from liability. First, the defendant must be a provider or user of an interactive computer service. Second, the cause of action asserted by the plaintiff must view the defendant as the publisher or speaker of the harmful information at issue.Third, the information must be provided by another information content provider. That is, the defendant must not be the information content provider of the harmful information at issue.


Overview of Section 230 of the CDA

The CDA was passed to enhance service providers’ ability to delete or otherwise monitor content without them becoming publishers. In Zeran v. America Online, Inc., the 4th Circuit held that it was Congress intention in enacting § 230’s broad immunity to internet providers because when faced with potential liability for each message republished by their services, interactive computer service providers might choose to severely restrict the number and type of messages posted. The court held that Congress considered the weight of the speech interests implicated and chose to immunize service providers to avoid any such restrictive effect.

The dividing line in determining whether an entity is an internet service provider or an internet content provider hinges on editorial publisher function and when something is a statement being made by the information content provider.


Youtube can not claim editorial control when at to same time is says it is a provider or a publisher…. Either you is or you ain’t…. No Middle Ground.

If it is a medium provider it can not tell its many publishers what they my publish.

YouTube is about to get it’s ass kicked and its value as a Medium Provider will go to Zero.

Too bad it was fun while it lasted.

Share with:

Liked it? Take a second to support Cactusthorns on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.