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.
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
How about what's legal and what's not? Most places criminalize child porn, not so much sex.
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?
Google has now interfered in the elections of a sovereign nation. Google must be destroyed.
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.
morcego
you should rename yourself 'inappropriate analogy guy'
It's "addds". Why do you people keep leaving off a D?
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
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.
Maybe Australia needs a pedantic grammar douche party.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
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.
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)
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.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
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.
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.
But.. But... Won't you think of the childrennn???
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
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.
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.
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.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
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.
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.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
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.
Blank until
You are also about 1000 times angrier than everyone else. Chill a bit, it isn't Blow an Aneurism Week.
Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
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
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.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
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
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
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.
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.
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.
On the basis of this advertisment I would have given them my second preference at least.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Pirates are in it for the sex?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
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.
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.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
No shoes, no shirt...
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.
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
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.
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.
Sure, but decriminalization has plenty of advantages and it's an easier policy to "sell".
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
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.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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).
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
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.
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.
Took the words right out of my mouth.
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.
(it's an industry lobby)
Then pay attention to their actual arguments and policies and debate them on that.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
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.
An important change for education.
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.
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Maybe Google secretly really likes the Sex Party and is intentionally Streisand Effecting them?
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
real man no respect grammar. real man make OWN grammar. then watch puny weakling adhere to reformed language and literary orthography. NAAAARG!
It's not hard to argue the other way around: Australia is trying to impose Australian moral standards on an American company.
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.
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.
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.
Last time I didn't get any cake.
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.
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.
I know you like to bash the US, but...this is also true in the US.
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/political-programming
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?
Liberty in your lifetime
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I think that they have to be gay before Google will support them.
testing out my trending skills
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.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
>>>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???
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
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.
In that case, let's hope no one from the Lemon Party runs for office.
Any sentence containing "disgusting" cannot be considered a fact, it is is necessarily a subjective opinion.
If you feel disgust, this is merely conditioning.
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.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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.
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.
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
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.
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
Two 17-year olds taking pictures of themselves having sex would be considered "child porn", even if the actual sex act was legal.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
But not bisexual: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/faith-cheltenham/google-instant-search-bisexual_b_1682654.html
Wrong. Boy Scouts of America.
Same thing happened with Reagan and Schwarzenegger. I think Reagan was the first, or at least first major candidate where that became an issue.
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
Can someone please link to the sex party ad? I mean is it impossible to find something online without using google these days?
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.
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.
+1 this :)
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".
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
"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.