Slashdot Mirror
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?"
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.
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.
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:
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
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.
morcego
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.
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.
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.
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.