Google and YouTube Sued for Censorship

Spurred by Whistleblower Revelations
Big Tech Must Answer in Court
Pre-Election TRO Sought

Leading California civil liberties lawyer Cris Armenta has just filed a major freedom of speech lawsuit against Big Tech giant YouTube and its parent company, Google.  Working with Zach Vorhies, the Whistleblower who revealed Google’s 12 member “Hate Speech Committee” (half of whom are Red Chinese Nationals) the lawsuit alleges massive and systemic violations of Section 230 of the Telecommunications Act, the companies’ terms of contract and Freedom of Speech with regard to centrist, conservative and libertarian opinion communications.

Read the entire 74 page complaint here:


http://www.opensourcetruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/1.-Complaint.pdf

Counsel announced,

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA – On October 26, 2020, fifteen YouTube content creators filed a federal lawsuit against Google and YouTube, alleging in seventeen claims for relief, that Google and YouTube breached the Terms of Service and violated their First Amendment rights, when they summarily de‐platformed the Plaintiffs’ channels and removed their content from YouTube without advance notice.
The Plaintiffs are the creators of YouTube channels, including: JustInformed Talk, SGT Report,
X22 Report, SpaceShot 76, TruReporting, RedPill78, Edge of Wonder, Praying Medic, Amazing Polly, Woke Societies, Daniel Lee, Deception Byes, InTheMatrixxx, Destroying the Illusion and Sarah Westall.

Together, their news and social commentary channels have reached more than 800 million views and together they had more YouTube subscribers than many legacy news channels, such as C‐SPAN, The New York Times, and NBC News. Plaintiffs cite a recent study by the Pew Research Center that concludes that many Americans get their news from independent YouTube channels along the same metrics as legacy or traditional news sources.

YouTube and Google are expected to defend the case and claim that Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act provides them immunity for the actions they took against conservative commentators, just 19 days before the November 3 Presidential Election. However, the Ninth Circuit has recently issued an opinion, retreating from the broad interpretation of the immunity that social media has used for years to defend lawsuits from its contract partners and users. The Section 230 immunities were provided by Congress as a means to give internet providers an ability to remove content that was considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.” Enigma Software Group USA LLC. V. Malwarebytes, Inc., No. 17‐17351 (Opinion filed September 12, 2019). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found persuasive the notion that the “unbounded reading” of Section 230 previously employed by social media giants such as YouTube would allow a content provider to “block content for anticompetitive purposes or merely at its malicious whim.”

Read the full media release here: http://www.opensourcetruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FNIAL-PRESS-RELEASE-10.26.2020.pdf

This reporter noted in a recent Open Source Truth article, http://www.opensourcetruth.com/lets-all-sue-big-tech/ that just days ago the US Supreme Court refused to reconsider the Ninth Circuit’s position that Section 230 must be read to protect Freed Speech interests.

It is our expectation that a Temporary Restraining Order may very well be issued prior to the election on November 3rd, assuring the public that communications regarding the election will not be interfered with by Google and YouTube. Without open communications about the election we cannot be assured of a fair and free electoral decision.

 

9 thoughts on “Google and YouTube Sued for Censorship

  1. Well done and I hope all goes well! These giants have so much power and use it to secretly influence people’s decisions and beliefs and hence their behaviour. This is entirely immoral and unethical. People have no idea what is happening because the surveillance over them is covert. International Law needs to control and constantly monitor the behaviour of these giants and others in the same fields such as You Tube.
    Times are changing. While we are told there is a virus killing people and that we must accept conditions against our human rights, even though we cannot find evidence of this virus’ lethality being worse than other annual flu outbreaks, there is a huge need for an International, independent legal force to protect the human rights of all people from manipulation, lying, false information, and the censorship of facts and scientific data.

  2. You need to make people aware that ALPHABET the parent holding company of Google, Youtube, etc… is being sued. Alphabet leads back to the elitist money funnels like Black Rock, Van Guard, and T- Rowe the top three share holders of the umbrella Corp Alphabet and the likely source of the puppet masters.

  3. In the UK many of the plaintiffs pursuing this action are seen as the grass-roots gateways to what is happening in the US and other parts of the world. News channels such as NBC, CNN all follow the same political narrative and are deemed (certainly in my circle) on a par with all British mainstream media brainwashing and fear-mongering outlets, BBC included. If you don’t like what you hear or see you have the right to switch off letting that organisation know what is and isn’t acceptable. To allow Big Brother Techie monopolies to remove your choices should be outlawed. To misuse ‘decency’ censorship as a way to enforce blanket censorship should also be outlawed. I wish them every success in bringing these monopolistic beasts into line.

  4. Just to let you all know, I just spoke to the Plaintiffs’ lawyer. We are awaiting the District Court’s decision on the TRO. In this case, since so many people rely on social media for political communication, and the election is just days away, any delay by the District Court is tantamount to denial. Just days ago the US Supreme Court denied Certification to a case out of California, the Enigma case, signaling that the courts have been giving too broad an interpretation of Section 230. The District Court should immediately issue the TRO. Here is the SCOTUS decision, leaving the 9th Circuit’s determination that Section 230 does not necessarily give Big Tech a free ride here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1284_869d.pdf — note Justice Thomas’ comments.

  5. I’m black and feel I was censored for criticizing BLM…Is there anything I can do…I have been terminated after 10 years…

    1. I know nothing about the circumstances so I really cannot say but if you feel that is what happened, talk to a civil rights lawyer. You have the right to speak and control your own body or you have no rights at all.
      Good luck.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *