Utah Trying To Restrict Keyword Advertising ... Again

Eric Goldman writes "The Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but does help trademark owners suppress their online competition."

Comments

remove the Mormons tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.

Re:remove the Mormons tag

[stoolpigeon]

It would have dropped off on its own - now you all have made sure anyone who comes along the thread later will know it was there. Sometimes it is worth just chilling out and seeing where things go.

Re:remove the Mormons tag

[Ironchew]

You have experienced the horror of keyword advertising!

Re:remove the Mormons tag

[RobotRunAmok]

Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.

Oh, c'mon, Dude!! What's wrong with you? Geez... Christian-bashing is the last socially acceptable form of bigotry left to Americans, and now you want to take that away, too?

Re:remove the Mormons tag

[Scrameustache]

+1. It's like having a story about water melons and adding a "black people" tag.

Actually, it's like having a story about laws regarding information technology and someones persecution complex turns the thread about their religion, the places where it is practiced, and the vrious shades it comes in.

Re:remove the Mormons tag

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way.

But most Mormons do. They are a fairly conservative bunch on the whole. The story is about a conservative, Republican, Mormon dominated legislature trying to get the internet to play by corporate rules. The "mormon" tag is just as appropriate as a "republican" or "conservative" or "corporations" tag on the story.

People can legitimately object to stereotypes and prejudices. But sometimes those stereotypes are things that are legitimately true and that need to be said, even if they do offend. Not allowing this leads to situations in which we now find ourselves. According to the UN, we can now no longer "defame" religions or their followers, no matter how much we disagree with their beliefs or practices.

Forget the rough stuff. Mormons, by dogma, can't drink coffee and tea. I personally think this is a stupid prohibition. Muslims, again by dogma, can't draw pictures of Mohammad. I personally think this a really stupid prohibition. Catholics( especially in third world countries), again by dogma, can't use condoms. I personally think this is an appallingly stupid prohibition which costs lives every single day. I think the people who follow these prohibitions are being unreasonable, inconsiderate and irresponsible.

My opinions here could land me in jail in many countries for being "bigoted" or for "stereotyping" or for "hate speech". Some people will say that I'm tarnishing the image of whole groups of people, or that not all people in those groups support these prohibitions. Tell that to the people living in Utah, or Saudi Arabia, or Italy, who have to put up with prohibitions imposed on them in the name of the silent religious majority.

In conclusion, it is not automatically "Wrong(TM)" to stereotype a religious community. In fact, when that communities religious practices start to infringe on others liberties, it is right to stereotype, lampoon and indeed "defame" those practices, and to force that community to reflect upon itself. Religion should never be except from criticism, and especially satire.

Re:remove the Mormons tag

[geobeck]

I think the difference boils down like this:

• Jews and Muslims consider Christ to be a prophet.
• Christians consider Christ to be The Prophet.
• Televangelists consider Christ to be The Profit.

Re:remove the Mormons tag

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that Mormonism is the Scientology of early America. Anyone here who rallies against the COS when they do...what they do, but gives slack to the LDS, has been deluded by the idea that "real" religions are sacrosanct and shouldn't be attacked for any reason.

Bashing a religion is not bigotry, because your choice of religion is your own. Most monotheists believe that in order to have fulfillment as a sentient being, you need to be personally adored by the omnipotent, eternal creator of existence itself. To me that seems slightly self-centered. Christians worship and purport to love a god that demanded that his own son be brutally tortured and executed if he didn't want to see his favorite race of created beings done the same way. Mormonism and Scientology are even worse because they haven't been around long enough to weed out the people at the top who know that it's all lies but continue to profit from it anyway. Pointing out the flaws in that sort of thinking, or even making blanket statements about how stupid those religions are, is not bigotry, it's pointing out that a set of ideas is stupid. Not only completely different, but absolutely reasonable.

Re:remove the Mormons tag

[Devout_IPUite]

And yet you post as an Anonymous Coward. I think people have an obligation to stand up and say this without fear of reprisal. Because if you are only willing to say something without attaching yourself to it, you're really killing your own qualifications.

That said, I endorse the post above.

So, Google will have a disclaimer...

[NotQuiteReal]

In tiny print, at the bottom of each page: "Please do not use this site where prohibited."

Utah?

[girlintraining]

This is a state where 58% of its inhabitants claim membership in a single religion, and the overwhelming majority of the legislature comes from this demographic. They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology. Might I suggest we kindly totally and completely ignore this state? They're clearly out of touch with not just reality, but the rest of the country as well. At worst, Utah-nians just won't be able to go online, and golly gee what a shame that would be. -_- Now go ahead and mod me to hell for stating the obvious. Or can we at least re-classify this under "It's funny, laugh." ?

Re:Process should be fair.

[the darn]

Nonsense; more than one advertiser can buy "Toyota" as a keyword, while there is only one Toyota.com. There's nothing wrong with presenting alternatives when someone is looking for something; search is not an exact science anyhow, and many results end up being something other than what you're looking for. A Chevy dealer could buy the keyword and run an ad promoting the Malibu as an alternative to the Camry or such.

Actually it does...

[tjstork]

Restricting the use of language doesn't work.

Actually it has and it historically does. That's why people do it. But this debate isn't really about restricting language, it's, deciding, who gets to own the definitions of words, the government, or the private sector.