Slashdot Mirror
Google Ads Are a Free Speech Issue
WebHostingGuy writes "A US Federal Court recently ruled that ads displayed by search engines are protected as free speech. In the case at issue, Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft were sued by an individual demanding under the 14th Amendment that the search engines display his advertisements concerning fraud in North Carolina. The Court flatly stated that the search engines were exercising their First Amendment right of free speech in deciding what ads they want to display."
No, we pretty much have the same rule as you do but since it's rarely enforced, people like Kevin Trudeau can continue to peddle crap which claims to 'cure' dieting even though by claiming such, he is required to submit his products for testing to verify their claims. Since you're not from the U.S., any product which claims to cure an affliction must be tested by the FDA to prove it's claims. If, however, you say that the product helps to relieve the symptoms of X, then it's not subject to medical scrutiny. See this FDA page on how things are supposed to work.
Which he hasn't and never will. The only time the FTC stepped in on his lame ass was when he sold the products themselves. The FTC shut him down based on his infomercials so he adjusted his snakeoil salesmanship to only sell the books which tell you what products to buy. Since his books are protected Free Speech, PROFIT!
See this link and this link for what a con artist this guy is and how he's endangering peoples lives with his lies as well an analysis by a doctor about his claims.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
His right of free speech is exactly that - the right to speak. There is no corrollary requirement that other people listen, or that they facilitate his his free speech.
This area of law is usually described as the "negative right to free speech"; namely, the right not to be forced to speak.
For example, in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), the Supreme Court overturned New Hampshire's motor vehicle regulation that required motorists to display license plates declaring "Live Free or Die". The court held that a person can not be forced by the government to display an ideological message on his private property. In West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624
(1943), the Supreme Court held that students did not have to recite the pledge of allegiance, since the government could not force a student to declare a belief.
Lastly, a private individual is not subject to the requirements of the 1st Amendment. A private individual is not the government. While the government can't force me to say anything, I might take on contractual obligations to make statements. However, if I fail to make those statements, a court would not force me to make those statements. It would hold me liable for money damages, unless it could find a very compelling reason to make me speak.
Maybe you should take a closer look, yourself. The US Constitution is a list of restrictions on what the government can do. Private entities are not bound by it.
The first amendment only prevents the government from restricting speech. As Google is not a government agency, they are free to restrict any speech they want to, on their property.
The guy who modded you "insightful" should go take a look at it, too.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
Let me pile on with the others who have said, yes you can. There are numerous cases where anti-abortion groups wanted to run ads on television showing dead fetuses and such but were denied by the stations in question. The groups claimed discrimination and other things but the courts consistently have held that television stations and such do not have to run the ads.
Here are cases involving billboard companies refusing to run ads because of their content:
North Georgia
Crawford Texas
Hollywood
Times Square
I know for a fact that Lamar Advertising refused to run ads in my area from anti-Bush people during the last campaign.
Here's a story from last year (2006) when CBS refused to run two ads during the Super Bowl. One was for PETA and the other was anti-Bush. Link
So yes, you can deny someone advertisement on a whim just like a restaurant has the right to refuse someone service for any reason they so choose.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
No, you can't really deny someone advertisement based on whim.
If you don't like the content, yes you can.
Private entities are generally able to discrimate for pretty much any reason, so long as the reason is directly related to the transaction at hand. Theaters can refuse to hire an actor based on skin color. Churches can fire a priest for changing his religion. Gyms can turn away paraplegic clients. Publishers can reject content they simply don't like.
The corellation must be direct, however. Theaters can't fire an actor for changing religion, gyms can't turn away clients based on race, and churchs can't discriminate over paraplegy.
The First Amendment does not restrict itself to *political speech*. The word "political" is not used anywhere within the U.S. Constitution, much less the First Amendment, therefore there is no "explicit" about it. Perhaps you meant "implicit"? In either case, it *is* clear from the full text of the First Amendment that *all* speech was intended to be covered, not just "political speech".
To whit:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Notice the mention of religion? Notice the mention of the press? These are not necessarily related to "politics".
Of course, being from Central Florida, I don't expect you to really give much attention to the actual US Constitution - just the Katharine Harris Abridged Edition.
Been there, Done that, Sold the t-shirt to the next idiot in line
One issue I do have with Google, Yahoo, et al. is that they are quick to assert their 'editorial' rights when they refuse an advertiser (and I agree that not only should they have the right, but that they should exercise it). However, when they do publish something egregious - be it child porn, whatever, they are as quick to assert that they - like a telephone company - have no control of what passes through their search engine. There's an inconsistency between their advertising and content policy that I'm not totally comfortable with. I can see why each exists, but is this for the best?
Google's ad content is something that they publish themselves, entering into particular business arrangements with each advertiser to put their ads up on the internet. As such, they necessarily do have editorial control over their ads, and thus ought to be free to put what they like in there or not. They can choose to do business with whomever they please, and refuse business as they please as well.
Google's search engine content is an aggregate listing of things that other people publish, gathered together by an automated process which, in order to remain as optimal as possible (i.e. fair search results, no gerrymandering), needs to be maintained as hand-off as possible. As such, adding/removing or promoting/demoting a particular result that comes up in their search engine (rather than tweaking the algorithm to make sites of a certain sort ranked differently) is a violation of their normal process.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Why should I go to jail because I invested money in a company, and some of the people employed by it do something illegal? I should be held accountable for my own actions, not for somebody else's.
Um, is that a trick question? If someone in your employ commits criminal acts to advance your interests, damn right you go to jail, or at least will be investigated very closely for your level for involvement.
If someone in a limited liability business you own (via stock) commits crimes to advance your interests (raise the stock price), you are assumed not to be a criminal, because the company is actually operated by others.
That's not actually why it's called a LLC, it's called that because you can't be held financially liable for the company. If you own 2% of a company that defrauds investors out of 10,000,000 dollars, they can't come after you for $200,000.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
And I'm sure that you sincerely think that, but the law does not work the way you think. In fact, if someone who is working for you acts to your benefit by doing something illegal, and you could have controlled him, even though you don't actually know what he's doing, then yes, you can be held responsible for what he did. Agency law is great fun, and you should read up on it, since you don't seem to know much about it right now.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.