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."
Good to see the human rights of search engines being protected.
Ah, wait...
The outcome of this case should've been obvious from the very beginning. Of course Google, Yahoo, Microsoft don't have to display his ads. It might be in their interests to display them since he will pay them for it, but why should they have to? He's still allowed to spread his information elsewhere.
"Wahh wahh... Google/Yahoo/Microsoft won't display the ads I want them to."
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!
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
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!
Well think of it this way:
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.
The right to free speech is also the right to not say something if you don't beleive what you're saying. This works on the same basis. It may be discriminating against a group, but that group exists because of human thought, not something you're born with. You can't just set up an anti-walmart group (or whatever) and expect everyone to bow to your right to free speech if it damages theirs.
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.
Then I guess you'll be really upset to learn that they have even MORE rights: 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.
See that little "of the press" part? They can publish (or not publish) what they like - so long as they aren't violating the law. Editorial decisions have significant protections under the US Constitution.
I assume you are a part of the "Companies should not be people!!" crowd that has been frequenting Slashdot?
Let me shed a bit of light on the obvious misunderstanding. Companies are not regarded as people. If they would, there would not exist separate laws for companies. The last time I checked, companies had significantly fewer rights when making purchases, and I can't see any requirements for private individuals to publish audited accounts of their lives. Per definition and logic, claiming that companies are regarded as equal to people is therefore plainly and irrefutably false. It is, again, completely incorrect and ignorant to claim that companies are by law considered to be in all ways equivalent of people.
What is however completely correct is to say that companies are considered to be 'legal persons', a special type of person (that is, again, not equal to a person on the street, in case you missed it the first time) for whom there exist separate laws. The rights of the 'legal person' does however have some significant overlaps with that of actual persons. This includes, for example, the right to not have published lies about them. That's a right individuals have, and a right companies have.
You would probably argue that it's a right companies should have - I would argue it's absolutely, by pure moral standards, equally right. Should people have a right to make placards of you with "Pedophile!" under and staple across town? You would say not. What if five people band together to do business, and call themselves a trade name, does that make it _morally acceptable_ for people to publish "This company trades in child sex!" placards about their _legal person_? Obviously not. The rights that overlap between legal persons and actual persons are for a large part very morally justifiable.
In short,
1. Companies were never considered "equal to individuals".
2. They do however have a significant overlap in rights and obligations with actual people. The difference is largely that companies have significantly less rights and more obligations.
3. The rights that overlap are, in my view, completely morally justifiable. Including the right to free speech, and the right not to have lies (incorrect facts, not opinions) published about you.
You are naturally free to disagree, but rather than the current mindless repeating scattershot of "companies are obviously not people and shouldn't be, that is the source of all our problems", please phrase your arguments in terms of specific rights that you feel companies should not be allowed from a moral perspective and the reasons for and against, bearing in mind that you still feel those rights are very important for individuals.
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.