Judgment that YouTube is not obligated to hold videos that disseminate misinformation about vaccines
In a court case in which an anti-vaxxer whose channel was suspended by YouTube was suing YouTube to regain access, the judge said, ``Based on YouTube's guidelines for removing medical-related misinformation, the suspension of use was prohibited.'' The judgment was justified.”
YouTube under no obligation to host anti-vaccine advocate's videos, court says | Ars Technica
Joseph Mercola, a prominent anti-vaccination activist, is also a YouTuber with 300,000 subscribers, and in addition to 'videos promoting health', he also posts videos related to the new coronavirus infection (COVID-19). I posted a video claiming my own point of view.
by
However, Mr. Mercola's channel was suspended 'suddenly one day without any warning,' he said. Mr. Mercola filed an appeal, but the only response he received was, ``After careful consideration, we have determined that it violates our community guidelines.'' Frustrated by this, Mr. I filed a lawsuit against YouTube seeking access and restoration of the video.
According to Marcola, YouTube suspended his channel for 'posting medical misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines, violating YouTube's community guidelines,' and told him that he would not be reinstated. thing. Mercola took issue with the fact that ``there was no advance notice before the suspension,'' and argued that ``YouTube did not act fairly and honestly.'' Furthermore, ``YouTube's denial of access to the video is a violation of its terms and conditions, and YouTube is obligated to pay more than $75,000 (approximately 11 million yen) in damages.''
Judge Laurel Beeler of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, who oversaw the case, said, ``There is no language in the terms that says YouTube is obligated to maintain certain content or that YouTube is obligated to store user content. No. YouTube may remove or suspend content in its sole discretion if it reasonably believes that the content violates the Terms or may cause harm. The punishment imposed on Mr. Mercola can be said to be appropriate.'' The court rejected all of Mr. Mercola's claims and ruled that there was no violation of the terms and conditions and that his claim for damages could not be accepted.
Legal expert Eric Goldman cited his paper reviewing judicial opinions on online services and content removal, pointing out that ``content removal lawsuits are never successful.''
Related Posts:
in Web Service, Posted by log1p_kr