Difficult to see how a government agency would not be breaching the first amendment by doing that.

1. Flagging != removal. Flagging raises awareness of issues with content to the actual moderation team and/or algorith. The removal process remains with YouTube.

2. There are governments not subject to the US Constitution and its First Amendment.

The actual story here is that flagging seems to be increasingly a capability that's being withdrawn from ordinary, or even selectively chosen, YouTube users, and instead is being permitted only to specifically chosen groups and organisations.

1. I doubt such a facile argument would fly in court.

2. True.

Can you cite any cases in which expressing an opinion via a government agency or office has been deemed a 1st amendment infringement in the US?

You obviously have a poor understanding of the law, because intent matters. Flagging content with the intention of having it censored or removed would certainly fall foul of the constitution.

It seems you didn't understand my question, as that's not at all what I'd said, nor asked.

Do you in fact have a precedential case citation?

Do I need one to have an opinion on the law or what might result? No I don't.

Is it truly so difficult to answer a simple yes or no question?

It's not a real question as it based on a false assumption and a straw-man analogy. I never claimed my opinion was based on a specific case so I have nothing to defend against.

I can assure you that it was a question born of curiousity as to whether or not you had any basis in fact or legal precedent for your claim.

It's overwhelmingly apparent you don't. I'm satisfied by your response to that regard.

Good chatting with you.

There are facts beyond specific legal precedent, if such a concept is within your limited cognitive grasp.

Flagging is literally the first step to organized censorship. Tired of this boiling the frog nonsense. I'm really beginning to understand the "Not One Inch" people, because it seems like the continued erosion of American Civil Rights, and Western Liberalism is done one inch at a time through flimsy lashing out at the Undesirables of the time.

Google has had 10 years of experience censoring the internet in China, and they're just trying to be first to market with a viable censorship package for western governments, should they go full great-firewall-style censorship. It's just good business.

>Google has had 10 years of experience censoring the internet in China

Why would they have that when they're banned in china?

Its getting harder to argue that big corporations and government aren't working together to manage the people.

Its pretty clear where the mainstream news source take directions from, and now YouTube is making it clear too.

Its not surprising that people who have something to say are leaving (or are forced to leave) in droves.

It has always been this way. Even the church and its policy of marriage are intermingled with the government and the three way contracts each participant signs in law. This is to enforce a form of communism on men on an individual basis one by one because it was not feasible yet to do it universally but we're heading there. There are discussions now of marriage becoming opt-out instead of opt-in when cohabitating. The media , the church, the corporations, the government , all of these things are controlled by Satan secretly.