A lawsuit making the provocative argument that one of the biggest social-media platforms should be subject to the First Amendment got a hard look from a federal appeals court in Seattle on Tuesday.

During arguments before the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Prager University, a nonprofit that produces bite-size explainer videos promoting conservative ideas, argued Google’s YouTube violated its First Amendment rights and misled its users when it limited access and demonetized dozens of its videos.

The restricted clips—with such titles as “Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?,” “Why Did America Fight the Korean War?” and “Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?”—are still viewable. But because YouTube flagged them as “inappropriate,” the lectures are stripped of advertising and hidden from minors accessing YouTube in restricted mode, often a mandatory setting on school and library computers.

Google says it restricted five-minute, animated videos produced by PragerU, not because of any alleged distaste for free-market or socially conservative principles, but due to its thematic content. PragerU, which isn’t a school, has a YouTube channel with more than 2.2 million subscribers.

The three-judge panel on Tuesday instead focused on a much more basic and far-reaching question: Can it even be possible for YouTube—a private company operating a private service on private property—to violate the Constitution?