Topic: Media Research Center
Catherine Salgado complained on behalf of a quack doctor in a Sept. 13 post:
YouTube censored a doctor making videos about COVID-19. When the doctor sued, the judge in the case sided with the censorship happy platform.
YouTube censored over a million videos for allegedly spreading COVID-19 “misinformation,” but later quietly changed its policy after some of this supposed misinformation turned out to be true. Dr. Joseph Mercola, who previously had hundreds of thousands of followers on YouTube, argued that the platform violated an implied contract with him by its anti-free speech purging of his channels. Unfortunately for Mercola, a judge recently sided with YouTube, noting that users agree to YouTube’s Community Guidelines. Without addressing the issue of First Amendment rights, the judge asserted that the platform is “not require[d]…to host content.”
The Sept. 4 ruling noted that YouTube “terminated” Mercola’s account because his content violated the platform’s COVID-19 medical misinformation policy. But it seems the platform did not ban Mercola according to its usual three strikes and you're out policy. As reported by Reclaim the Net, Mercola accused YouTube of silencing him without prior warnings and even refused him access to his own content.
Mercola’s legal team sought restitution for damages and access to the banned content. The team argued that “the termination breaches YouTube’s terms of service [and] violates the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,” according to the ruling.
But YouTube won its anti-free speech case and the judge claimed that a user checking a box and agreeing to the platform’s terms of service allows YouTube to censor free speech.
Salgado censored the fact that Mercola is a discredited quack doctor. As we've noted, Mercola is a seller of health supplements who opposes immunization, fluoridation of water, and mammography; claims that amalgam fillings are toxic; and makes many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements. He's also been ordered by the FDA to stop making illegal claims about his supplements. And Mercola has, in fact, spread false and misleading claims about COVID and its vaccines. WorldNetDaily unsurprisingly loves Mercola and has touted his most bizarre claims, such as that Will Smith's slap of Chris Rock at the Oscars was designed to sell prescription drugs and his hypocritical "mass formation psychosis" theory.
How ironic that Salgado is censoring relevant information while accusing someone else of "censorship."
Salgado made no effort to demonstrate that any Mercola claim that YouTube ruled to be misinformation was actually not. She also didn't explain why YouTube, as a private company, does not have the right to refuse a platform to dishonest grifters and quacks like Mercola, or why she is apprently demanding that it host such content.
The MRC complained last November when YouTube banned Mercola, but again, it refused to vouch for any his claims, whining instead that he was banned for spreading "so-called COVID-19 'misinformation.'"
