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?"
you should rename yourself 'inappropriate analogy guy'
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
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 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.
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.
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.