YouTube isn't bound by the First Amendment and is free to censor PragerU videos, a court ruled

Facebook Email icon An envelope. It indicates the ability to send an email.

Email Twitter icon A stylized bird with an open mouth, tweeting.

Twitter LinkedIn icon

LinkedIn Link icon An image of a chain link. It symobilizes a website link url.

Copy Link lighning bolt icon An icon in the shape of a lightning bolt.

This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Log in .

• In 2017, the right-wing organization Prager University sued YouTube, claiming the platform had violated its First Amendment rights by flagging some of its videos as "inappropriate."
• A court on Wednesday ruled in YouTube's favor, saying private companies like YouTube and its parent company Google are not bound by the First Amendment.
• A lawyer for PragerU said the organization was "disappointed" but would continue to pursue discrimination claims against YouTube.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Sign up to get the inside scoop on today’s biggest stories in markets, tech, and business — delivered daily. Read preview

A federal court in California has ruled that tech platforms like YouTube aren't bound by the First Amendment when they're deciding whether to remove offensive content.

The ruling was made during a case brought by the right-wing group Prager University, which sued YouTube and its parent company Google in 2017 for flagging some of its videos as "inappropriate." PragerU posts videos on everything from economics to philosophy from a conservative perspective.

This story is available exclusively to Business Insider subscribers. Become an Insider and start reading now. Have an account? Log in .

It argued that YouTube marking its videos as inappropriate constituted illegal censorship under the First Amendment. According to The Wall Street Journal, the flagged videos included titles like "Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?" and "Why Isn't Communism as Hated as Nazism?"

The judge's ruling was not a shock, as the First Amendment applies largely to government censorship of public speech, rather than private companies. "Despite YouTube's ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First Amendment," Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote about the ruling.

PragerU's lawyer Peter Obstler told The Journal the organization was disappointed with the judge's ruling. "We will continue to pursue PragerU's claims of overt discrimination on YouTube in the state court case under California's heightened antidiscrimination, free-speech and consumer-contract law," he said.

A representative for Google said the company was not politically biased. "PragerU's allegations were meritless, both factually and legally, and the court's ruling vindicates important legal principles that allow us to provide different choices and settings to users," the person said.

Google has faced accusations from right-wing groups and politicians over the past few years that it censors conservative content. In 2018, President Donald Trump accused Google of rigging search results against him and "suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good." He did not provide any evidence but reiterated the claim in an interview last June.