NSSF Comment On New YouTube Policy

[Smokepole]

NSSF Comment On New YouTube Policy

By John Richardson
N0 Lawyers-Just Guns & Money
March 21st. 2018

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has weighed in on YouTube's new policy regarding firearms-related videos. NSSF also notes that they themselves have over 500 videos uploaded to YouTube.

The NSSF statement:

YOUTUBE’S NEW POLICY PROVIDES CAUSE FOR CONCERN

YouTube’s announcement this week of a new firearms content policy is troubling. We suspect it will be interpreted to block much more content than the stated goal of firearms and certain accessory sales. Especially worrisome is the potential for blocking educational content that serves an instructional and skill-building purpose. YouTube’s policy announcement has also served to invite political activists to flood their review staff with complaints about any video to which they may proffer manufactured outrage.

Much like Facebook, YouTube now acts as a virtual public square. The exercise of what amounts to censorship, then, can legitimately be viewed as the stifling of commercial free speech, which has constitutional protection. Such actions also impinge on the Second Amendment.

Facebook Precedent

In what we see as a parallel situation, Facebook has repeatedly shut down the pages of legitimate and reputable firearms retailers that were following Facebook’s own rules. The interpretation depended on the reviewers, the vast majority of whom have little familiarity with our business practices, let alone our products, and many of whom do not even do their work from American soil.

Both First and Second Amendment rights are essential to the liberty we enjoy as American citizens. In a very real sense, the de facto curtailment of First Amendment right of its firearm related business users, YouTube is edging toward simultaneously infringing upon the Second Amendment rights of the customers of these affected businesses.

Commerce in Firearms is Essential

As Circuit Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain wrote in his 36-page opinion, “Our forefathers recognized that the prohibition of commerce in firearms worked to undermine the right to keep and bear arms.”

This argument can be logically extended to social media platforms. It is time that social media platform management realizes its broader collective responsibility since it commands so much of today’s virtual public square. Suppressing the expression of First Amendment protected political speech and of commercial speech is wrong, even if they think they are acting in the public interest. The resulting impingement of lawful commerce in firearms that brings with it the infringement of Second Amendment rights is equally wrong and it should stop.

[jmonarch]

Net neutrality would have stopped this. Not!

[TylerV76]

Net neutrality would have stopped this. Not!

Well thats because this doesn't relate to Net Neutrality what so ever.

[jmonarch]

Well thats because this doesn't relate to Net Neutrality what so ever.

Yes. I agree, but lots of people seemed to think it was the cure for view point discrimination on the net.

[kramer]

I am wondering if we could file a class action lawsuit against YouTube based upon the logic presented by NSSF. If a baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding then..........

[Professorwiz]

Yes. I agree, but lots of people seemed to think it was the cure for view point discrimination on the net.

Well it could have something to do with Net Neutrality if AT&T and others start throttling speeds to pro 2a sites, as they can without net neutrality. Look for the worst case scenario and then protect against it..

[jmonarch]

I'm much more worried about the view point discrimination going on at Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, etc than I am about throttling. I understand that they are private entities and not subject to 1st Amendment constraints, however, they have become so big, they are almost monopolies. Perhaps they should be required to serve all comers like the bakers in Colorado.

[steve77]

I don't understand how Facebook isn't regulated as a utility, such as a phone company? A phone company is privately owned, yet they can not disallow certain topics of speech on their infrastructure. I'm not suggesting more government regulation to force facebook to bend to my desires, simply curious how they are not subject to similar constraints.