It is only in response to someone mistakenly arguing to assert their 1st amendment rights in a context where it isn't applicable that this rebuttal even makes any sort of sense--which is not the case for the OP, who didn't mention the 1st amendment or even the US at all. Even here, it is a pedantic argument, such a declaration is a mere technical mistake. In liberal democracies we value freedom of expression.
I'm not generally in favor of taking corporate personhood to logical extremes, but I'm kind of OK with companies having values and being able promote those values. Being able to promote some speech over others is part of that.
The First Amendment applies to the government because the government is a privileged party. Its role in society is dislike that of any private citizen or enterprise, and the restrictions we place on it reflect that uniqueness. It only makes sense to extend the First Amendment to other parties that have a unique role.
Which we do, e.g. Common Carrier restrictions on the movement of goods, and a variety of special requirements on telecommunications companies. If we want to say that social media platforms have become a core aspect of modern democracy and need to be regulated as such, there's an argument to be made. But applying it to private businesses in general is overreach in my opinion.
There's another line of reasoning that "First Amendment" is a stand-in for the societal value of freedom of speech. While it doesn't legally apply, we invoke it to mean that freedom of speech is the first-est of amendments, i.e. is the freedom that we rank more highly than any others. This still gets into the same paradox though. A company shouldn't be forced to equally support all viewpoints because then it's not a freedom, but we can certainly express dissatisfaction that a private party is acting in a way counter to the values of our society.
This is not quite right, legally speaking. Currently Youtube and other platforms enjoy the protection of Communication Decency Act Section 230 [1]. In particular, the passage "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".
This passage has two side effects. One is, those platforms enjoy a liability protection - they cannot be sued for the content published on them, as they are not 'speaker/publisher' of the content (the original poster is). The other is, those platforms should not enjoy the freedom of speech protection - as they are not, legally speaking, the 'speaker/publisher' of the content.
The 'freedom of speech of Youtube' argument runs counter to Youtube's best interest - immunity from civil liability, as granted through the Section 230.
--
"any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected"
Any Internet platform can moderate to their heart's content, even if it goes beyond the extent demanded by the law. There are no constitutional free speech protections on the Internet. The "publisher/platform" thing is pure horseshit spread by people who cry about "online censorship". Unfortunately that tactic seems to be working.
The effect of the law is that sites have less civil liability for user generated content, even if they make some decisions about what content is acceptable.
Those decisions can't get limited under the first amendment, and the content still has 3rd party speech protection.
So the government asking YouTube to remove a video would be a 1a violation, by controlling it's moderation decisions.
If YT is just some form of medium, not the "speaker"/provider and by that not allowed to remove content under its own freedom of speech, why is it then allowed (even forced) to block my content under copyright laws if it infringes someone's copyright.
Why not just route the DMCA request to me and I would need to react. Isn't YT treated as provider/publisher, when forced to react to DMCA requests on my behalf, if I infringe on some copyright?
Putting aside whether or not this is nonsense to begin with, it certainly doesn't apply to China, which is a government. A law requiring companies serving the US market to not comply with censorship by China is restricting what China can do, not what those companies can do. The companies then have a problem if they exist in two jurisdictions which now have conflicting laws, but they can solve it by moving out of whichever jurisdiction they please.
(In practice the way this is done is with data location rules, that EU data must be stored in the EU, which is clearly a restriction on the way the company operates)
As long as those values don't conflict with things like freedom of speech, I agree. But the second they do, there needs to be repercussions.
For example.
I as a consumer want to use Amazon because I've never had a bad experience with them. But I really really really don't want to be complicit in forced child labor because somewhere in their supply line is a company using it.
Think of it like the Overton window. Everything inside the window is fair game, but the second you step outside of that window you pretty much get destroyed or very nearly. Basically put the fear of god in them the same way the IRS puts the fear of god in citizens for not paying taxes.
I'm ok with you valuing your religion or women's rights. I'm not ok with you banning accounts of activists who are critical of the chinese government (zoom).
This is not correct as a blanket statement. The constitution defines the powers of all three branches of government, not just congress. It also puts some restrictions on states and has some general prohibitions that don't just apply to government (for example, it defines treason). No other amendment in the Bill of Rights has "congress shall make no law" in it; they all just say certain things are prohibited or required, period. And subsequent amendments, such as the Fourteenth, place restrictions on States. Parts of the constitution are specifications for congress specifically. But not all of it.
The reason individuals and businesses can refuse to allow speech they don't like in their homes or places of business, or on their websites, is that that is part of their right to free speech--the right to control speech on their own property.
Try walking into a restaurant and wailing on about Trump.
In 'Western Democracies' we also value private spaces and the ability for private groups to make their own rules.
Freedom of expression does not apply to YouTube in the 'Liberal Democratic' sense.
1) Private businesses can make rules for the content they want to have up.
2) In public you can do mostly as you please. Nobody can take down your website unless you're doing something specifically illegal.
3) If we want to ban other countries stuff because they are totalitarians, we can do that.
It does, just in that YouTube is the possessor of the right, not the restricted governing party.
I don't think YouTube would, for example, cite 'their 1st Amendment Rights' as legitimacy for censoring content on their site.
