Australian Sex Party May Sue Google Over Ad Refusal

New submitter niftydude writes "Australian newspaper The Age is carrying the story: The Australian Sex Party has threatened Google with legal action after the search engine refused to run its ads on the eve of tomorrow's Melbourne by-election. It comes after Sex Party ads were blocked by Google at the last federal election because the company — which is typically opposed to censorship — perceived the text as too racy (the ads were reinstated by Google the day before the election). Sex Party candidate Fiona Patten said this time the search giant said it would not approve her ads 'because we have a donate button on our page and we're not a charity.' Don't all political parties allow donations? Is google imposing its own sense of morality onto Australian politics?"

Comments

There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is a company, not a government entity. They can refuse to do business with anyone they want. Nobody has any kind of right to use their services.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they're regulated, of course. Not saying they should be, but it is perfectly possibly to force a company to do something.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not necessarily the case. In some jurisdictions, it is required to give equal access to all political parties. If you will run ads for one candidate in a race, you must give make ad space available to all the other candidates in the race in similarly prominent positions for the same cost.

dom

Re:There is no problem

[evanism]

As it is here. Refusal to run one parties ads on non equal terms leads to a bollocking. Fairfax, NEWS et al get around it in the form of editorial support/panning but the ads must be the same.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they can refuse to do business with any specific person/entity based on uniformly applied policies, what they can not do is refuse to do business with a group of people defined by race, social standing, religion, sexual orientation etc.

Re:There is no problem

[isorox]

Google is a company, not a government entity. They can refuse to do business with anyone they want. Nobody has any kind of right to use their services.

No blacks no Irish no Gays

Re:There is no problem

[AliasMarlowe]

Yes, they can refuse to do business with any specific person/entity based on uniformly applied policies, what they can not do is refuse to do business with a group of people defined by race, social standing, religion, sexual orientation etc.

I suppose the Australian Sex Party could make a case that they're being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. They also have a policy that religion should be kept out of politics, which might preclude discrimination against them on religious grounds.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

And Google can make a case that they rejected them based on their standard policies.

They can either remove the 'Donate" button and reapply (and if Google finds another reason to refuse that will be hella suspicious), or they can find another party with "Donate" button AND Google ads (and if Google doesn't remove it promptly that will be hella suspicious)

Right now I doubt they can win with this in any court, maybe except for court of public opinion.

Re:There is no problem

[AliasMarlowe]

Care to point to the Google policy which you claim is being breached by The Sex Party? Some other parties in Australia also have donate buttons on their websites, and there is no sign of Google refusing their election ads.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in third world countries like the USA, without any regulations.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Err, what? I claimed no such thing, and I'm no spokesperson for Google.

In fact, after finally reading TFA, there's already a) mentions of other parties with donate buttons, and b) a claim that the policy applies only to non tax-exempt organizations and they are tax exempt. If they sue, they'll probably win.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

No shoes, no shirt...

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The very concept of a "company" is completely dependent on the legal framework created by a given government. They don't even have a right to exist, let alone refuse services, without the consent of whatever government rules an area where they seek to do business.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said any of that? Not only are you making foolish assumptions but the fact that you are unable to make a distinction between business practices and racial discrimination disqualifies you from this discussion.

Have you ever been to a jacket and tie restaurant? Refuse the dress code and out the door you go. It's a business's prerogative.

Re:There is no problem

[Arancaytar]

That is complete nonsense. It is illegal for a company to refuse business for all but a few very good reasons, due to decades of civil rights legislation to stop discriminatory business practice. And more specifically, it is illegal for a broadcaster to refuse a political advertisement.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever been to a jacket and tie restaurant? Refuse the dress code and out the door you go. It's a business's prerogative.

Have you ever been to a men clubs? Not having a penis and out the door you go. It's a business's prerogative.

Have you ever been to a country club? Not being white and out the door you go. It's a business's prerogative.

Jacket and tie restaurant? That is just discrimination against poor peoples. Open your eyes, idiot. And INB4 'if they can afford a tie they can't afford to eat there' because the same could be said about poor nigger, poor spic, etc.

Re:There is no problem

[thetoadwarrior]

In some countries they believe in fair elections and if you're going to give fair and equal time to all of them. I know the US is used to elections being something rich people buy but that's not free countries work.

Re:There is no problem

[TapeCutter]

They can refuse to do business with anyone they want.

That's not how it works here, there are rules about equal access to media services for political candidates in an attempt to ensure that one rich party cannot hog all the eyeballs, besides the paid for adverts from registered political parties always come with an "authorised by", so you know who to blame should you be offended.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking Randroids, thinking only the government could do anything wrong.

Re:There is no problem

[zAPPzAPP]

You are approaching it from a legal standpoint.

But sometimes things that are legal can still be problematic. This here is part of such a problem.

With the big U.S. internet companies providing world wide services, they tend to impose american moral standards on everyone of their customers.
Companies like Facebook have rules concerning profanity and 'adult' content, that abide american standards, Google filters what an American would consider morally wrong and so on. Even in countries that don't care much, when someone shows a boob on TV, these same rules are applied.

Why is this a problem?
Because it is shaping public opinion. A former more liberal community will get used to these puritanian concepts when exposed to them all the time and it will change that community.

If you have a hard time understanding this problem, because you are from the U.S. yourself, imagine if all the big internet companies were from Iran instead. Imagine how that would start shaping your daily life, if you had to abide to Iranian moral standards when doing pretty much anything online.

Re:There is no problem

[TapeCutter]

Here in Oz equal access to political advertising services, means equal access. If google allows a donate button for one candidate then they must by law allow it for all candidates. I work with a guy who knows Fiona personally, I'd like to see a couple of reps from one issue (socially liberal) parties such as this get a seat in parliment. The problem they have is that nationally there is some support for them but politics is local and you need enough voters in one spot to get past the post (or some strange preference deals and a lot of luck).

Re:There is no problem

[chrb]

or they can find another party with "Donate" button AND Google ads

The GOP has Google ads and a Donate page. I suppose you may reply and be pedantic and say that the button text is "Contribute" rather than donate, but the text "Complete the form below to make a donation." makes it pretty clear that the action is considered a "donation".

The British Conservative Party uses Google ads and they have a Donate page. The text "Why Donate?" "Make a donation" makes it obvious that this is considered a donation.

And that was just the first two that I checked, I'm sure you can find more examples.

Also, from The Fine Article, it appears that Google is being inconsistent:

the Greens candidate in the state by-election, Cathy Oke, has ads running on Google despite having multiple donate buttons on her web page. "We've sent them screenshots of the donate buttons on the ALP and the Greens sites and they've allowed all of those ads to run," she said. Google said in an email to Patten, seen by this website, that it "doesn't allow the solicitation of funds (donations) unless they're tax exempt". The Sex Party is an Australian political party and so, according to the ATO, donations are tax deductible. The party specifies this on its website.

Re:There is no problem

[Anon8---)]

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Re:There is no problem

[edumacator]

After a really quick Google search, I couldn't find the ad, but I remember when Clint Eastwood was running for office, the networks wouldn't show his movies because they were scared the other candidates would ask for equal time, and since Eastwood didn't pay to have the movies run, they'd have to do it for free.

Imagine TNT having to let each candidate pontificate for two hours. I can't even stand the thirty second ads.

Re:There is no problem

[WillDraven]

Maybe Google secretly really likes the Sex Party and is intentionally Streisand Effecting them?

Re:There is no problem

[Jiro]

It's not hard to argue the other way around: Australia is trying to impose Australian moral standards on an American company.

Re:There is no problem

[Trongy]

I imagine she would sue Google Australia. "Google Australia Pty Limited is a foreign owned proprietary company that provides advertising services relating to its web search engine in Australia. The company is wholly owned by Google Inc, a multinational corporation based in the United States. Google Australia employs approximately 430 staff and is headquartered in Pyrmont, New South Wales."
http://www.ibisworld.com.au/enterprisefull/default.aspx?entid=11646

If the Australian courts did impose judgements against Google, it would be based on laws rather than moral standards.

Re:There is no problem

[evafan76]

No shoes, no shirt...

I have always wondered what would happen if you walked into an establishment with a sign saying that with a shirt, shoes, and no pants. They never said anything about pants.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you like to bash the US, but...this is also true in the US.

http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/political-programming

Re:There is no problem

[Attila Dimedici]

They would probably call the police and have you arrested for indecent exposure. However, most places of business do not have those signs because they care if you wear shoes and/or a shirt, but because of health regulations (they can be fined by the local health department if they allow people in the store without shoes and/or a shirt).

Re:There is no problem

[Jiro]

You're trying to argue it both ways.

If they're an American company for the purpose of "this is an American company trying to impose rules on Australians" they should also be considered an American company for the purpose of "this is Australia trying to impose rules on an American company". It's hypocritical to decide that the company is or is not American depending on which country is being blamed.

Re:There is no problem

[Golddess]

Just playing devil's advocate, but how exactly is refusing to do business with "nigger, jews and homosexual" not a uniformly applied policy? Unless the business makes exceptions for "nigger, jews and homosexual" that they like, they are uniformly refusing to do business with all "nigger, jews and homosexual", aren't they?

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not hard to argue the other way around: Australia is trying to impose Australian moral standards on an American company.

When an American company does business in Australia, the Australian government have the right to do that.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Your understanding of history and economics in this regard is incorrect. Discrimination is rampant in the realm of trade between people, and that is precisely what serves people most. See, when you choose your employer, friends, and partners, you are discriminating for qualities you appreciate. That action brings some value to you. Likewise, when a business discriminates in selection of employees and customers, it anticipates and aims for the exact same results, else it wouldn't last long among better providers. Violently attacking anyone who uses some particular quality as a point of discrimination like skin color had no good justification at all. It made things worse for all parties(save the few bureaucrats who created positions for themselves and friends to fill). The dissatisfaction, antagonization and increased tensions caused significant problems.

Now, let me tease apart some things that did get better that most people conflate with this particular action. While these controls were doing real harm to people, there were at the same time genuine improvements being made. Peoples values were changing to dismiss skin color as a quality they cared about. Real change was being achieved through individuals actions to change peoples minds. So while the gun wielders were making things worse, the peaceful were spreading a bit of reason throughout society, making advances in public opinion.

One last historical fact that I'll add is that in addition to using violence to prohibit the freedom of association of people by forcing them together, there were also many laws violently prohibiting the freedom of voluntary association by forcing them apart. There certainly was a lot of chosen exclusion going around, but there were many more businesses aiming at satisfying black customers but couldn't. Those businesses who excluded people for qualities that had no objective effect on their performance with the business were at a significant disadvantage. This lead to getting the government to protect these inept producers by enforcing universal restrictions on black employment. Customers were equally targeted in this fashion, not by businesses, but by regulation. The preferential treatment on busses we all learned about which primarily served blacks had no interest at all in doing this to the majority of their customers. They were coerced. These jim crow bus laws were just one example of violent laws prohibiting the freedom of voluntary association by forcing people apart. So when more of such laws were created to violently compel people together, it didn't solve that problem at all. Rather than remove the violence in the equation in keeping people apart in certain ways, more violence was added to force people together in other ways. It didn't make things more natural, more normal, it made things even more off balance from how people wanted to live, both blacks and whites. The saving grace for all of this was entirely outside the realm of laws. As I mentioned before, social progress was being made at the same time and thank goodness for it. If those laws were made on their own with no actual solutions occurring at the same time, it would have been a nightmare.

So, this is why I don't think your claims hold up. Both historically and economically, they aren't sound.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

>they can be fined by the local health department if they allow people in the store without shoes

Why?

Re:There is no problem

[theskipper]

In that case, let's hope no one from the Lemon Party runs for office.

Re:There is no problem

[guises]

This is easily refuted:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11938320

It's possible that what payment processors did to Wikileaks is illegal in some countries, but this is ultimately unimportant. They did it anyway and the result has been the same.

Re:There is no problem

[budgenator]

After looking at the sex party site, and their platform, it's not like they are that far out there; decriminalizing drug and sex workers probably wouldn't work in Utah, but Nevada is half-way there. As far as boobs on TV, mens boobs are OK and anyone with a penise is a man, and many transgendered are still technicaly men and and many have some pretty spectacular boobs which would be technicaly legal on network television.

Re:There is no problem

[budgenator]

So if I buy stock in Honda of Japan, they don't have to follow Japanese law because they are partially owned by an american? Sorry, Google Austrailia is an Australian company without regard to how much or how little of it is owned by foriegners.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

"They would probably call the police and have you arrested for indecent exposure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_nudity_in_San_Francisco#Legality

Re:There is no problem

[gizmonic]

Why?

Because a bunch of people who think they know what's better for you than you do decided it. Kinda like how most laws get passed.

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a bunch of people agreed on what's better for society as a whole. Kinda like how most laws get passed.

FTFY

Re:There is no problem

[bkcallahan]

Wrong. Boy Scouts of America.

Re:There is no problem

[the Gray Mouser]

Same thing happened with Reagan and Schwarzenegger. I think Reagan was the first, or at least first major candidate where that became an issue.

Re:There is no problem

[peawormsworth]

After a really quick Google search, I couldn't find the ad, but I remember when Clint Eastwood was running for office, the networks wouldn't show his movies because they were scared the other candidates would ask for equal time, and since Eastwood didn't pay to have the movies run, they'd have to do it for free.

Imagine TNT having to let each candidate pontificate for two hours. I can't even stand the thirty second ads.

Maybe u woulnt mind so much after seeing the 2 hour sex party

Re:There is no problem

[Meski]

IANAL, but the media that they run on probably matters. This isn't print media, or FTA tv, or radio, or any of the broadcast stuff. It's individuals choosing to do a get from a website.

Re:There is no problem

[Meski]

+1 this :)

Re:There is no problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done that, they're called bicycle shorts.

Re:There is no problem

[Golddess]

Flamebait? What, we aren't allowed to play devil's advocate anymore?

The question was a serious question. While I agree that a company should not be permitted to refuse to do business with a group of people defined by race, social standing, religion, sexual orientation etc, the AC said that companies may still refuse to do business on a uniformly applied policy. And I fail to see how refusing to do business based on any one of those criteria cannot be made to fit into a "uniformly applied policy".

Re:There is no problem

[hand_of_lixue]

"because of health regulations" At least in the US, that's pretty much uniformly false - no state health department cares about whether you wear shoes or not. There is exactly one state that requires you to wear shoes when driving a motorcycle, and zero that require it for a car. I've never even heard of the shirt part being related to health codes.

porn party?

[rainmouse]

And if they were the child porn party? Would it still be censorship to ban their adds? Google have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they chose to do it.

Re:porn party?

[_merlin]

A hypothetical child porn party would probably not be permitted to register and for election in Australia. Google could just refuse to run political ads from anyone other than a registered political party. But no, they pick and choose which parties they will or won't run ads for.

Re:porn party?

[cheekyjohnson]

Would it still be censorship to ban their adds?

The content in question doesn't matter. That has no effect on whether or not it's censorship. But I can't see how child porn is in any way related.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about what's legal and what's not? Most places criminalize child porn, not so much sex.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, assuming the report is correct: why are they saying it's because of the donate button if it's actually because they think something (Sex or maybe parties) is immoral?

Re:porn party?

[morcego]

And if they were the child porn party? Would it still be censorship to ban their adds? Google have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they chose to do it.

Banning adds for something that is illegal is not exactly censorship.

Re:porn party?

[blackfrancis75]

you should rename yourself 'inappropriate analogy guy'

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "addds". Why do you people keep leaving off a D?

Re:porn party?

[thegarbz]

It is censorship to ban adverts which don't breach the advertising legislations of the country in which they are being shown regardless of your moral standing.

Worse still I'm not sure on Australian law but some countries have specific rules about elections. Decisions like this may remove Google from the right to advertise for any political party during elections.

Also have you actually had a look at their policies? Despite what they call themselves this party stands for all the things a typical slashdot user holds dear including:
- Drug reform
- Anti-censorship
- Net Neutrality
- Anti government snooping
- Internet education
- Equal rights laws including same sex marriage
- Separation of religion from government

They are like the Pirate Party except they've been around longer.

Re:porn party?

[SpaghettiPattern]

And if they were the child porn party? Would it still be censorship to ban their adds? Google have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they chose to do it.

You must be from the USA. You rationalize something related to sex by throwing in an extreme, illegal practice. No doubts left.

Buddy, sex isn't something to get all worked up about. It may come as a shock but both you and I are most likely products of normal sexual behavior.

I'll recap:

• Plain sex isn't something that should raise the geek's brows.
• Child porn is both illegal and highly despicable. It's a very abject thing because it violates children's development on many levels.
• Mixing the two in order to promote a puritan point of view is tasteless.

Re:porn party?

[cheekyjohnson]

If it's censorship to ban the ads in the first place, then the content, whether illegal or not, does not matter. You might agree with the censorship, but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.

Re:porn party?

[blackfrancis75]

what the hell; are you really seeking to equate the Australian Sex Party with a hypothetical 'Child Porn Party'?
Are you saying those who oppose this think no line should be drawn anywhere?
Get a grip dude.

Re:porn party?

[pellik]

Vote Google King of Australia!

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue here is whether or not Google should be going beyond what the law requires. Law typically requires child porn to be banned and for court orders to be upheld when issued and such, but beyond that it's up to Google to decide what to accept and what not to accept.

However, because Google has a dominant market position in advertising space if they make too much use of discretion, especially if it appears political, they could find themselves broken up.

Re:porn party?

[gorgonymus gorgward]

But.. But... Won't you think of the childrennn???

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get off it. They wouldn't call themselves "the Sex Party" out of a healthy & mature appreciation of reproduction, it's a shocking/joke name for a political party that splintered from a porn industry lobbyist group.

Re:porn party?

[morcego]

The issue here is whether or not Google should be going beyond what the law requires. Law typically requires child porn to be banned and for court orders to be upheld when issued and such, but beyond that it's up to Google to decide what to accept and what not to accept.

However, because Google has a dominant market position in advertising space if they make too much use of discretion, especially if it appears political, they could find themselves broken up.

Thank you, you make a very good point. If the law requires Google to ban it, then Google is not censoring it. Someone could make a case the government is censoring, but that is besides the point here.

However, in this particular case, there was no lawful requirement stopping those adds. It was Google's own decision. Then, we have a problem, and a big one at that.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a very abject thing because it violates children's development on many levels.

That would be the rape. We do indeed need to stop the rapists.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buddy, sex isn't something to get all worked up about.

Your doing it wrong.

Re:porn party?

[gorgonymus gorgward]

I think Google is being overzealous-by-default.

Consider that the default filters ban anything related with sex to show on advertisements delivered to the mass, and consider that it takes much more time to deal with the bureaucracy at Google (all the different levels of message forwarding to the higher authority etc) than it takes time for a script to ban 'X' ad that has 'Y' keywords in it.

Most people, most of the time, don't want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it themselves. I remember in the days of old when I was searching for WhateverWarez and I got constantly diverted by LaraCroftBoobs ads. No unlimited bandwidths back then, and no DSL, so the phone line was constantly in use.

But I digress. Google needs to refine its blocking filters to include more exceptions and/or at least inform their costumers about the filters in lieu and make it CLEARLY visible what route to take to be considered an exception.

Re:porn party?

[evanism]

I don't doubt the OP's dude only ever gets gripped. By himself. Hence the hysterical nonsense response.

Time to get out of his mums cellar.

Re:porn party?

[houghi]

Yes, it would still be censorship. Just because it is something you do not like and agree with banning does not not make it censorship.From wikipedia:
Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body.

Childporn is (rightfully so) illegal, because of the law. The law is made by politicians. Those belong to parties. If they want to change the law, that is the way to do it.

Banning them is the worst kind of censorship. It would shut down the possibility to change the law. The same law that allowed children to get into forced marriage. The same one that allowed slavery. Indeed Google has to draw the line somewhere. It has to be drawn at freedom of speech or no freedom of speech. They have drawn their line at no freedom of speech.

Some thoughts:
âoeI disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.â â Evelyn Beatrice Hall

âoeBecause if you don't stand up for the stuff you don't like, when they come for the stuff you do like, you've already lost.â â Neil Gaiman

âoeThis is slavery, not to speak one's thought.â â Euripides

Re:porn party?

[jamesh]

Most people, most of the time, don't want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it themselves.

Nicely put. Certainly those who, most of the time, _do_ want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it themselves, don't need google to remind them.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

And?? So now the porn industry is also synonymous with child porn? The party was launched to counter the ridiculous christian groups trying to impose their Puritanical and most unwelcome ways on Australians. While the name is a bit silly it is meant that way as a direct attack on the morons that would like to have you think and do exactly as they tell you to.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

One taboo at a time.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what, pray, should they have called themselves? Copulation/Coitus/Fornication/Fucking Party? Face it, sex is the most straightforward word and shortest word you can use, and they used it.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

- Drug reform

It's reform, but just decriminalization. The optimal solution for me would be 100% legalization.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

yes, retard. learn the meaning of words.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, it's going to need to be clarified by Google if they made a mistake in authorizing the other sites' ads or if they made a mistake with this one. But, either way they're going to have to come to a consistent stance or probably lose the lawsuit.

It's an important distinction to make between Google censoring and a government censoring as in the case of the latter Google can only pull out of the country or follow the law.

Re:porn party?

[icebraining]

Considering there are ads on Google for pornographic websites, I find it very hard to believe that they refused it out of their own moral sense.

Re:porn party?

[icebraining]

Sure, but decriminalization has plenty of advantages and it's an easier policy to "sell".

Re:porn party?

[thetoadwarrior]

So long as the CP party doesn't use anything illegal why should they not be ableadvertise or run? If people don't want a party that legalises CP then it will never pose a threat.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Buddy, sex isn't something to get all worked up about. It may come as a shock but both you and I are most likely products of normal sexual behavior.

The Australian Sex Party is by and for the sex industry (it's an industry lobby). You're also welcome to smoke, gamble, drink alcohol, eat fast food, and all sorts of things - but a political party run by any of a tobacco company, the poker machine industry, the vodka distilleries, or McDonalds would probably attract equal concern and disdain.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this differ from anything else? Most of the time I DON'T want to be forced to think about cleaning products or shopping for a new car or whatever either.

Re:porn party?

[Lord_Naikon]

Actually, in the Netherlands there used(?) to be a "pedophile" party. Its goals among others were the lowering of the legal age of consent to 12 years. As long as the party itself acts within the boundaries of the law, they are free to promote any political opinion, even if these clash with the current law. This is very important for a healthy democracy.

Re:porn party?

[cheekyjohnson]

(it's an industry lobby)

Then pay attention to their actual arguments and policies and debate them on that.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your doing it wrong.

English, "your [sic] doing it wrong."

(Low hanging fruit jokes invite low hanging grammar nazi responses)

Re:porn party?

[jamesh]

If you find cleaning products or buying a new car more distracting than sex then any explanation of what I wrote is lost on you.

Re:porn party?

[loufoque]

Child porn is both illegal and highly despicable. It's a very abject thing because it violates children's development on many levels.

Too bad you had to ruin your argument by treating a religion-biased judgemental opinion as fact.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, 'used to be': The party got disbanded after they tried for four years to get enough autographs from people for them to have any right of existence (by lack of any other words :) ). Since they couldn't get these 'votes of confidence', they couldn't start their party (the core members of the group was only about 4: 2 of them the typical dodgy pedophile). Also, this pedophile-party used to organise group-events, but that recently got banned by a judge, as apparently dodgy stuff was taking place.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the same Google who is meant to be pushing same sex marriage rights on other governments?

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Australia we spell it adddds, so they are leaving off 2 Ds, mate!

Re:porn party?

[Hatta]

Decriminalization maintains the black market. There's little to be gained from that. It's just more people giving more money to organized crime. There's no sense whatsoever in treating cannabis any different than beer.

Re:porn party?

[vux984]

How is it religion based?

Atheists tend to think sex with five year olds is just as disgusting and harmful to the child as everyone else does.

Re:porn party?

[loufoque]

Any sentence containing "disgusting" cannot be considered a fact, it is is necessarily a subjective opinion.

If you feel disgust, this is merely conditioning.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only because they've been bred in a Christian environment that generally viewed sex as wrong and wanted to push it off as long as possible. Until a christian purity group pushed their social agenda in the 1800s, the age of consent was between 10-12 (i.e. puberty) for most states in America. But historically speaking, most non-Christian civilizations did not have any conception of an age of consent and sex with a child was considered no different than with anyone else.

You can argue we're better off now, but "it's gross" is not a real reason, nor is it a response free from social conditioning.

Re:porn party?

[icebraining]

Our experience here in Portugal shows that there is much to be gained from decriminalization, even if it's far from the optimal solution. The data shows there is less social stigma, more people getting treatment, less AIDS/HIV infections and reduced drug usage amongst young people.

I'm not saying that we should be satisfied with decriminalization, but it's still a step in the right direction.

Re:porn party?

[budgenator]

Sites with Google ads may not include or link to:

        Pornography, adult or mature content
        Violent content
        Content related to racial intolerance or advocacy against any individual, group or organisation
        Excessive profanity
        Hacking/cracking content
        Gambling or casino-related content
        Illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia content
        Sales of beer or hard alcohol
        Sales of tobacco or tobacco-related products
        Sales of prescription drugs
        Sales of weapons or ammunition (e.g. firearms, firearm components, fighting knives, stun guns)
        Sales of products that are replicas or imitations of designer or other goods
        Sales or distribution of coursework or student essays
        Content regarding programs which compensate users for clicking ads or offers, performing searches, surfing websites or reading emails
        Any other content that is illegal, promotes illegal activity or infringes on the legal rights of others
AdSense program policies

I don't see what Google's problem with the Sex party is, and considering the constraints with election dates, OOPs we're sorry isn't going to work in this case either.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for that awesome response, I'll be using that from now on.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

I voted for them in the last federal election :)

Re:porn party?

[corsec67]

Two 17-year olds taking pictures of themselves having sex would be considered "child porn", even if the actual sex act was legal.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

He was arguing the "religion-based" part of the comment, not whether it was fact or opinion.

Re:porn party?

[vux984]

That is more an issue with having a line in the sand definition of "child".

If you were to talk about 4 and 5 year olds, who we can all universally agree are children, your example would have a very different impact.

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you re-read it, he's extending the principle to see if there is any extreme case that disproves it, not equating the two.

This flaw happens all the time when people respond to reductio ad absurdum arguments;

A: I think situation X is unacceptable.
B: You're wrong, situation X is acceptable because of principle Q
A: But principle Q implies completely different and extreme situation Y is acceptable, which we both agree it is not
B: Omg!!!! You're saying situation X is the same as situation Y!!!

Re:porn party?

[Anonymous Coward]

So did I. A vote for sensible government!

shot down Google!

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has now interfered in the elections of a sovereign nation. Google must be destroyed.

Re:shot down Google!

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL, except this time it would be the US blocking the UN resolution on sanctions.

Rather appropriate that it should be the Sex Party as I'm already of the opinion that Google can go fuck themselves.

Re:shot down Google!

[brisk0]

Not sovereign, Australia is under the commonwealth and theoretically subject to the will of the queen of England

Re:shot down Google!

[TranquilVoid]

It's an interesting question as to whether a business should be allowed to discriminate in an area the business has an opinion on. Even whether a business can hold an opinion as such, although they are part of society.

Given businesses can come out in support of issues (Google with gay marriage) and, more directly, the fact that many large business support a particular political party financially, it's not a clear-cut situation.

Grammar Standards Imposition

[guttentag]

Sex Party Candidate: "Is google imposing it's own sense of morality onto Australian politics?"

No, but if you keep confusing "it's" with "its" you may find people imposing common standards of grammar on you. That can't be good for your credibility. As if being a self-proclaimed mouthpiece for a sex party wasn't bad enough.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[outsider007]

Maybe Australia needs a pedantic grammar douche party.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[Anonymous Coward]

As if being a self-proclaimed mouthpiece for a sex party wasn't bad enough.

Every sex party needs mouthpieces, babe.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. I know I drive a nicer car than you, my girlfriend is way hotter than anyone you have ever had a conversation with, and my house could swallow yours and not notice.

Why? Because I am more than literate and it paid off. And if you are still obsessing with beer and "banging" women, you clearly are not there yet and may never be. Hopefully, though, at some point you will stop measuring up your dick and just be be happy, because someone else's will always be bigger.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[Farmer Tim]

It's not "a sex party", it's "The Sex Party"...that is, it's a political party with policies centred on sexual and gender issues, and has nothing to do with putting your car keys in a bowl.

I should explain that Australian political parties usually have deceptive names. For example, the Liberal Party are the conservatives, the Labor Party usually puts everyone out of work, One Nation divided the country before forking itself, and the National Party doesn't field candidates in most electorates. The Greens are pretty much what you'd expect, though until recently their leader was a chap by the name of Brown, so while technically they tried to fit in it was a predictably feeble effort. On the New South Wales state level we also have the Christian Democrats, whose values are hardly those of Christ and is run by a religious oligarch, and the Shooters and Fishers Party, which is a reasonably accurate description but they put the "jerk" into "knee-jerk".

And if you exercise your comprehension skills you'd find the grammatical mistake was on the part of the submitter, not the candidate.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[evanism]

You are also about 1000 times angrier than everyone else. Chill a bit, it isn't Blow an Aneurism Week.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd vote for them.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[chilvence]

real man no respect grammar. real man make OWN grammar. then watch puny weakling adhere to reformed language and literary orthography. NAAAARG!

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[loufoque]

It's funny how Americans always find the use of correct grammar to be a chore.

Do they not realize what the point of grammar and orthography is? It makes it easier to understand the sense of what they're saying, which in turn enables easier communication between people.

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[cpu6502]

>>>Do they not realize what the point of grammar and orthography is?

We were educated by the government. What do you expect? Good outcomes from a government program???

Re:Grammar Standards Imposition

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think educates Australians? The Tooth Fairy?

Australian Sex Party?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, baby, yeah! That's my bag, baby!

Not surprising

[Smidgin]

I believe a relevant policy page is here, basically unless you're a charity you can't use the donate button or they can freeze your account. The buy now button is available for others but is only supposed to be used for physical goods apparently, not sure whether intangibles like subscriptions or software qualify. I know some places just use the buy now button and sell crummy little tokens or somesuch and people basically make donations that way. Still, political parties should definitely be eligible for the donate button and it seems like an oversight on google's part that they're not.

In any case google's policies with their ad services are pretty dreadful. I know several (by which I mean at least 2 I can recall) sites/people that had their accounts/funds frozen after their site was linked by a big site (slashdot, reddit, digg, etc) or made the news. The sudden big spike in traffic was deemed suspicious since such a spike in traffic clearly could only be the result of trying to defraud google. Both cases the people just ditched google for ads because they couldn't get their accounts unfrozen (or at least not easily enough that they gave up first), got a different ad provider and considered the money that was in the account a loss.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Sex is a 'physical good' right? So they just need to sell prostitution and they're good to go :)

Cute... captcha was 'pansies'.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

The sudden big spike in traffic was deemed suspicious since such a spike in traffic clearly could only be the result of trying to defraud google. Both cases the people just ditched google for ads because they couldn't get their accounts unfrozen (or at least not easily enough that they gave up first), got a different ad provider and considered the money that was in the account a loss.

This would likely have occured with any ad provider you care to mention under such circumstances including the one(s) they moved their business to. I'm sure I could find anecdotal evidence of traffic going in the other direction.

The rest of what you write I agree with and yes I am aware the term 'anecdotal evidence' is an oxymoron.

Re:Not surprising

[fatphil]

> unless you're a charity you can't use the donate button

According to TFA, they're tax exempt, just like the other political parties who are using a donate button.

Is this incompetence on google's part, or is it malice? Google are notoriously incompetent, I have proof of this as another one of their head-hunters approached me the other day, apparently unaware of the fact that I repeatedly say that they both are evil and suck. They'd better hope they're incompetent, as if it's malice I reckon (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQnd5ilKx2Y) that it will reach court otherwise. (But they have the bigger lawyers, so can probably buy a victory.)

Re:Not surprising

[Jiro]

I'd go with incompetence. "Sex" is a very obvious keyword to use to automatically ban ads for something based on a keyword search. Follow up with bureaucracy lying about the reason they banned the ads because they want to pretend they banned the ads for cause instead of because nobody read them. I wouldn't be surprised if they also have internal policies about sexual ads and that even though those ads are not actually sexual, nobody at Google will unban the ads because overbanning won't get you fired but underbanning will.

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax Exempt does not mean that they are a Deductible Gift Recipient, i.e. that you'd get a tax deduction for your donation to them.
However, they may be a DGR, I can't be bothered to look.
[I am not a lawyer or accountant but I am an Australian with an inkling of Australian taxation law].

My own band can't advertise on Google

[geekd]

I can't advertise my own band on Google. They refuse my ads again and again. Free music. It's MY music. My band wrote and recorded it. They will not let me advertise it as free.

The ads take days to get denied. Then I change it and it's days again to get denied. Eventually I just gave up.

On the other hand, the ads for free web games I make get approved in hours.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[geekd]

I totally agree. But it is frustrating. They don't give any reason, just a "denied"

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[ThatsMyNick]

Well, they have pretty close to a monopoly on web advertising. If this continues, I hope the govt breaks down Google or pushes for regulations that govern web advertising.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[PolygamousRanchKid]

On the other hand, the ads for free web games I make get approved in hours.

Put your music in your web games. Problem solved.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[geekd]

Already on it. :) My web games are in HTML5, and it sucks how bad the audio in HTML sucks. Actually, it sucks how bad HTML5 sucks. My next game will be in flash. I know how much of a dead end flash is, but that says something about how much HTML5 sucks, doesn't it?

Could I write "sucks" a few more times? What does that even mean?

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[kiddygrinder]

sure, they have the right to suck, however it doesn't mean they don't suck.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[Scorch_Mechanic]

See, because you didn't plug your band (and I can't find any reference to it on your linked website) now I'm genuinely curious. I'm all for free music, and despite the occasional itunes purchase the vast majority of my (admittedly small) library is free.

Drop us a link, would you please?

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[geekd]

http://theexperiments.com/ rock / punk it's al CC licensed, free downloads. Thanks for your interest.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[Pieroxy]

Could I write "sucks" a few more times? What does that even mean?

My question exactly. What exactly sucks about HTML5? You message would be a lot stronger with specifics than just repeating "sucks" 1000 times.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the solution here is simple.
You have the means to make a game based on your band. Good luck.

If they refuse this, then they have an agenda against you or something.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[geekd]

I thought was clear. Massive frame rate inconsistency. I can't even benchmark my code, because one play I'll get 40, then I shift-reload and get 60. No rhyme or reason.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[geekd]

Sorry, just re-read my post and realized I was mis-remembering. I had also posted to facebook on a similar subject. Anyway, massive frame rate inconsistency, along with shitty audio support.

I go to bed now.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, Flash still has a good while on it yet. It won't be completely gone for at least a decade, games-wise.
Will likely last longer though.

Plus, the good part for you is you can make branded versions for other websites after you have completed the game and get a nice bit of money for it.
Slap that bad boy on Flash Game Licence and watch the money come in for a pretty well done game going by your current games, solidly done.
Flash ain't all that harder to use either. Easier in some respects, much easier to make portable files for.
While you can make HTML5 portable, it is a right bitch to do so.
I wrote a simple preloader about a month back just to prove it could be done. The only problem is it has "load-points" throughout the document, looks nasty.
And as far as I know, I cannot directly embed binary content in to the document yet. Those blobs aren't going to be too useful without this. Why would people still want to base64 the content in?? Mind you, the only problems I seem to have is with the NULs. Maybe my editor (Notepad++) is terrible and refuses to save them for some reason. Must test hex editor.
But yeah, it is entirely possible to just pop all content in to a single compact file for distribution, so that is nice to know now.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[Pieroxy]

Your code should be ready for different client configurations anyways, so there is no way you'll get consistent framerate anyways. What OS and what browser were giving you this behavior?

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[ThatsMyNick]

Redundant? Seriously? Looks like someone did not like my comment

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a genius! I like your music especially how it sounds like you are underwater part of the song before coming up for air in wanna get laid (it's friday night).

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[ultranova]

Google is a private company, not public infrastructure.

Since we allow private companies to grow without limit, this is not necessarily true. "With great power comes great responsibility", and frankly, it's about time we stop pretending that the word "private" excuses you from it.

Re:My own band can't advertise on Google

[Walter Carver]

Yikes! The links require JavaScript!

Disappointed - absolutely nothing racy about ads

[rsborg]

They were (gasp) text ads - nothing lurid, no links to pictures of hot heavy action.

Perhaps they didn't live up to the moderators' standards of a nice good racy ad?

Shame on Google IF...

[NeveRBorN]

They are running ads for other parties who are soliciting donations from their site. I haven't seen ads either way, nor did the linked article directly state that they were hosting ads for other parties that were soliciting ads. If this is in fact the case, I'd be truly disappointed. Before I jump to that conclusion, I'd like to see the ads that are being posted for the other parties rather than jump to a conclusion based on a potentially biased source.

After all, this is the internet we're talking about, right? If the ads exists and the other parties are soliciting donations from their sites, we should be able to see better proof than just texts that alludes to something.

Re:Shame on Google IF...

[93 Escort Wagon]

After all, this is the internet we're talking about, right? If the ads exists and the other parties are soliciting donations from their sites, we should be able to see better proof than just texts that alludes to something.

This is Slashdot - there's a policy against direct links to informative material. If you must provide a link, it has to be either to a previous Slashdot story or else to an advertisement-heavy set of 10-15 linked pages, each of which contains at most two sentences of information.

They have every right

[bug1]

They have every right to ...

Have you ever stopped to consider what that means, and how ridiculous it is if taken literally.

It implies that google has no legal obligations to government, shareholders, or customers. Its not true.

Re:They have every right

[kthreadd]

Not if you take the ... part into account, since I specifically mentioned the acceptance of ads.

Sex Party

[jamesh]

Google is just giving the masses what they want. When someone googles for sex party, they want to see a party with a whole load of sex going on, not a political advert.

Shame I am 4km out of Melbourne

[MichaelSmith]

On the basis of this advertisment I would have given them my second preference at least.

So basically

[dutchwhizzman]

Pirates are in it for the sex?

Re:So basically

[Pieroxy]

Pirates are in it for the sex?

Yarrrrrrrrrr !

Just vote Greens

[Anonymous Coward]

The sex party is boring, another minor party like the pro pot party. the Greens already have the sex party policies on drugs/government bedroom intrusions/sex workers rights anyway, and they're actually successful at the Ballot Box.

Re:Just vote Greens

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep trying to take the votes away from the Pirate Party AU, are ye?

Re:Just vote Greens

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say vote Greens too, but not for that reason. The Sex Party is basically just a libertarian party with a provocative name. That means their basic platform is no government control of anything. They're against gun control for instance.

Whilst there's overlap between some of TSP and The Greens' policies (and I'd definitely preference them above the other minor parties), They definitely don't stand for the same things The Greens do.

Australian Sex Party should be disband

[Anonymous Coward]

Australian Sex Party should be disband and it's members executed for being a bunch of leftist retards.

Re:Australian Sex Party should be disband

[Anonymous Coward]

Could be worse. They could be rightist retards.

wouldny it be nice if

[aheadinabox]

As a political candidate, one could buy ad space from Google and as part of the deal pay x amount of dollars for the additional service of denying competitors ads. I'm not saying this is what happened, but think about it, how much would it cost, and if priced right how effective this would be.

Using google to find information

[jaymemaurice]

Using google to learn more about this political party is not without obstacle... some may even say it's hard. The search results often return an orgy of irrelevant sites.

Morality is a bad thing now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Literally every day on /. people complain about immoral and unethical corporations. Now, a corporation exercises some moral discretion and they get slammed for it. You can't eat your cake and throw it at someone, too.

Re:Morality is a bad thing now?

[Smallpond]

Last time I didn't get any cake.

Re:Morality is a bad thing now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dictating your morals to others is considered immoral. /. is pretty consistent on that.

Free ad

[Smallpond]

Why pay Google for an ad when you can get free publicity by deliberately submitting an ad that you know they won't run, then submitting a frivolous lawsuit.

Share the wealth, Google!

[J'raxis]

Maybe it's time that the government step in and force Google to play fair. You know, for the good of society, they should be made to share with everyone. That's what Google seems to want for other companies, so what's good for them is good for Google, isn't it?

Re:Do evil

[eugene ts wong]

I think that they have to be gay before Google will support them.

Sex Party Meeting

[Anonymous Coward]

Employee: Boss, I'm going to have to call it a day; Sex Party meeting at 5:00pm
Boss: say what?
Employee: Sex Party! 5:00pm!
Boss: you're fired!

Important missing piece

[Attila Dimedici]

There is an important missing piece to this story. What was the ad that Google refused to run? I actually searched to see if I could find the ad that Google rejected, but was unable to find it. Without knowing the content of the ad that Google rejected it is impossible to know if Google was behaving in an acceptable manner or not. The story as told reflects badly on Google, but it is told exclusively from the perspective of the Sex Party. Yes, we are given a quote from a Google email where they say that "it doesn't allow the solicitation of funds (donations) unless they are tax exempt." But notice, that is a sentence fragment, we do not know what came before the word "it" in that quote.
Did the Sex Party submit an ad which was constructed in such a way that they knew it would trigger a ban from Google in order to be able to generate a news story that would gain them more attention than any ads they could actually run would? Did they intentionally play things out so that it would appear to Google that they were a porn site? There are other ways that the Sex Party could have played this so as to lead Google to ban their ad. I am not saying that they did. I do not know. But without seeing the ad that was initially banned, I have no way to judge that...and the fact that they are not putting the ad up for perusal anywhere that I can find suggests that the possibility that the Sex Party intentionally gamed the system to get banned needs to be given serious consideration.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

[Anonymous Coward]

When an Australian visits the USA, they are subject to the laws in the USA just as an American is subject to Australian laws when they visit Australia.

If Google is going to serve ads to Australians then they should be aware of what the laws are in Australia relating to ad placement, especially since Google has a presence as a company in Australia. In this case, if Google was serving some political ads to Australians but not others, then it would appear Google has decided to act as judge and jury over what is allowed. In doing that they're exposing themselves somewhat foolishly because they've made it clear that they have the ability to selectively deliver ad content but rather than follow the rules in the law books, they've made up their own rules. Ooops.

Wait, you say, doesn't that make it difficult for Google because they serve people in countries all around the world?
If Google can tailor the ads I see based on geo-location of my IP address so that local companies are preferred then I can't see any reason why they can't use that same geo-location information to ensure that ad delivery follows local laws. And having seen some of the TV ads in Europe, I'm pretty damn sure they exercise quite a lot of care to ensure that European ads don't end up in front of American eyes.

Google makes a huge profit every year. There's no reason why they can't do their due diligence and follow local laws when serving ads to non-American folks. Just hire another building of Chinese/Indian works to bang out some code.

Typically opposed to censorship?

[Tailhook]

Google banned all firearm related products from Google Shopping not two weeks ago. Some of you are indulging an idealized `do no evil' Google from 2001. Google censors whatever it's told to and whatever it doesn't like whenever it wants. There may be some vestige of reluctance to censor within Google, but it's not bothering anyone.

Re:Do evil

[bkcallahan]

But not bisexual: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/faith-cheltenham/google-instant-search-bisexual_b_1682654.html

Where is the link?

[peawormsworth]

Can someone please link to the sex party ad? I mean is it impossible to find something online without using google these days?