Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Ads Are a Free Speech Issue

Posted by kdawson on from the free-as-in-not-speaking dept.

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."

4 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Human Rights by LainTouko · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good to see the human rights of search engines being protected.

    Ah, wait...

  2. Who cares? by babbling · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."

  3. This was settled along time ago by gravesb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  4. Negitive Free Speech Rights by ubuwalker31 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.