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."
There was a case about an enivornmental group suing a power company to put an advertisement in the power company's bills. The court ruled that the power company didn't have to include the advertisement, even at no cost to themselves, because it would force them to either contest what was said in the ad, or implicitly agree with it. I don't see how this is any different, except it involves that internet thingy. Maybe a lawyer looking to make a quick buck?
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
It's a user moderation system for Slashdot story submissions. You're presented with a list of currently submitted stories, and you mod each one up an down depending on your personal opinion. Submissions are then ranked on some kind of colour system, with red submissions being the higest rated, and purple or black the lowest. You can also submit tags for consideration I believe. Presumably this aids the editors in the selection process, preventing dupes and such like.
To descend even further offtopic, I'd like to publically apologise to the Slashdot Editor for all the flack they've gotten from me over the quality of stories on the front page. The submissions are as a rule really quite bad. Not awful, though there are the occassional moronic posts and even a few spam ads. The majority of submissions just, aren't very good.
Long rambling paragraphs filled with personal diatribe and hyperbole. Spelling mistakes. Raw urls instead of anchor tags. Summaries that are too long, too short, incoherant, undescriptive or misleading. Headlines without any capitalisation, in the wrong section or with the wrong topic. Duplicated and resent submissions. Laborious submitted journals. Submissions consisting of nothing but a bookmark, or one solitary link with "check this out" on it. Most of the good submissions coming from the same authors again and again.
I would estimate, that of the filtered submissions, those above the equivilant of a moderation of 1, about 1 in 15 could be considered as a potential candidate for the front page. 90%+ of my votes so far have been negative. It's really that bad in there folks. Cut the eds a little slack when the next dupe comes around. Well, not too much slack.
May the Maths Be with you!
Yes, there is. In fact, there was just a big case concerning false advertising a couple months ago. Some of those "magic super pill" weight-loss-in-a-bottle companies were fined massive amounts of money and told to pull their commercials and never show them again.
However, this case isn't about false advertising, it's about search engines refusing to advance one idiot's personal views under the guise of advertising. So the judge is using the First Amendment to reinforce the idea that said engines don't have to run those ads if they don't want to, for any reason they don't want to, as opposed to the idiot's claim that they DID have to because he is entitled to due process in a public forum (which was a frivolous claim anyway, since Google is not a government entity and is not a protected public forum).
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
The guy has two websites, one complaining about a North Carolina polititian and the other about China. He submits his ads to Google, Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo who either ignore him or refuse to run the ads. Google and Yahoo even delists his sites. He sues all (dropping AOL later) saying the companies are public places (like malls) and he should be allowed free speech. He also says there's a common law contract such as between innkeepers and guests.
The judges take each item and reply that it doesn't apply and dismisses each claim. Google et.al. are not Inns, Shopping Malls are private companies and not subject to free speech laws. He's not a citizen of Delaware so not applicable. No actual damages occurred so no claims are valid.
The only charge left is breach of contract between Google and this guy.
The interesting thing in general that I learned was that judges and lawyers are basically researchers. They take each point and find case law that's already been rendered and reference it in their judgements. The case is actually more interesting reading because of that.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
I think the firehose is working very well at filtering dupes - a quick look found no "dupe" in the tags for the last few days. When was the last time that happened?
:(){
Google, Overture, and many, if not all, of the other major ad services will NOT accept paid ads, no matter how benign, from cannabis / marijuana information websites.
And since the major paid ad services are basically an oligopoly, that leaves such objectionable websites with little to no alternatives...
Even worse, Google, Yahoo, etc can choose to reject / demote websites they don't agree with in their free search listings too at any time...
Freedom of speech is all well and good in the marketplace, but tends to severely breakdown in an oligopoly environment.
Ron
Interesting and insightful response. Glad you posted it; this thread has been well worth reading. 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?
The right to speak includes - outside of some very narrow exceptions - the right not to carry someone else's opinions as well. Some cases have ruled that even public transit agencies have the right to choose not to carry certain ads. Further cases have refined that such that, for example, corporations have the right to have public opinions and to make them public. But it's also important to note that a private organization that publishes material has a right (within certain limits) to decide what it will or won't carry. You can't carry ads which are themselves illegal, and conversely, many cases have held that a newspaper has the right to choose not to carry certain materials if they don't want to.
A state law in Florida attempted to do for newspapers what the Fairness Doctrine did for television stations: require when a newspaper supported a political candidate or provided space to one, that they had to also give space to others, or when they expressed an opinion they had to give time to the other side, or something like that, I'm not exactly certain which it was. Courts found that requirement unconstitutional and struck it down.
Now, the only time that a particular place can be required to carry someone's message is when they are considered a common carrier (such as a telephone, telegraph or cable tv system). They generally were required to provide service to anyone who could pay the same rates as anyone else, because they were granted an exclusive license to operate, or, today, they have the use of a limited resource - the public right of way - to provide service to customers, since the customers can't build their own phone lines across the roads (the way, say, anyone can buy a car and drive it on the highway), they have to provide service to anyone who can pay.
The ostensible reason the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine with respect to broadcast stations is that they have a license to use extremely limited airwaves and should not be permitted to monopolize something which is a public resource. Of course, this is a hard argument to make today because the television stations tend to presume that they own the airspace they have and any dispute of their exclusive rights should be resisted vigorously, hence the usual fights over even small and marhginal organizations operating low power television. But the argument still can be applied; not everyone can run a television station because "their ain't that much room available" in the airspace.
Now, it's arguable that none of these search engine companies that accept ads are in any way a user or licensee of a limited or public resource or have some special condition that requires them to in some way be declared to be common carriers.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
If you were working in a shop, and someone walked in, picked up a coke, and walked to the counter to buy it, you'd serve him, right? But you'd still have the right not to serve him, if he's being anti-social or smoking in your shop or something. Something *you* don't agree with.
Actually, this right has been stripped from us in most circumstances. If you choose not to serve someone, you're going to get sued for discrimination based on whatever...
Personally, I think anyone should be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason as long as the reasons are publicly posted. If you don't want to serve a black man, I'll call you an idiot but you should be able choose. If you don't want to serve a Christian, I'll call you an idiot but you should be able to choose.
I'm hoping that someday an active Klansman applies for a job with the NAACP. Can you imagine the fight? Which side would the ACLU take? Which side would the Press take?
> 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.
It's ironic you use Kevin Trudeau as an example. The FDA (or some agency) denied him from ever selling supplements or other medical devices again, precisely because of constant fraud on his part.
[i]This is why he's now selling books rather than supplements and whatnot.[/i] He can get around the fraud using free speech. What he states is largely crap, and possibly deadly if the advice is followed, especially by cancer patients.
I suppose a few lawsuits by the estates of dead buyers of his books might clear things up a bit and make it unprofitable for him to continue. One can always dream...
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Corporations has rights like humans. The problem is that corporations do not have responsibilities like humans. When a corporation creates a faulty product that kills people and they know it and don't fix it for financial reasons, that's murder for monetary gain. In some US states, as far as I know, that draws the death penalty. Now the corporation as an entity shields all of its C*O-s from responsibility but then the corporation itself is not punished according to its crime: it gets fined at most. Why not execute it? That is, end its physical existence, meaning that it just closes down and all its property (the physical body of the corporation) gets taken with no compensation whatsoever. For lesser charges, like fraud, theft and alike, it could get jailed: banned from operating for X years, but it is not killed, i.e. it still has its assets and, if it can survive the jail, it can open shop in a couple years again.
Humans have human rights *and* human responsibilities.
Corporations have human rights but no human responsibility, plus they are shielding the real people who form the corporation from the consequences of their actions if they commit them in the name of the corporation (while of course getting a *personal* gain).
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?