Slashdot Log In
Google Ads Are a Free Speech Issue
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Feb 28, 2007 07:56 AM
from the free-as-in-not-speaking dept.
from the free-as-in-not-speaking dept.
WebHostingGuy writes "A US Federal Court recently ruled that ads displayed by search engines are protected as free speech. In the case at issue, Yahoo!, Google, and Microsoft were sued by an individual demanding under the 14th Amendment that the search engines display his advertisements concerning fraud in North Carolina. The Court flatly stated that the search engines were exercising their First Amendment right of free speech in deciding what ads they want to display."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Human Rights (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, wait...
Re:Human Rights (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is a moronic statement. If I pay someone to do something illegal, then I should be punished for that. If I pay someone to do something legal, and they do something illegal on the way, then it's their responsibility, not mine -- regardless of whether the illegal act was to "advance my interests"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Individuals working in the service of that corporation have free speech rights, correct? So every time you see "Google's free speech rights", replace it with "the free speech rights of all individuals working for Google". Now, what's the problem?
Remember, a forest *is* just a bunch of trees.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, for your information, Corporations do have rights. Ever since the 19th century when the courts ruled that a corporation is entitled to the same rights as a person.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wahh wahh... Google/Yahoo/Microsoft won't display the ads I want them to."
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same as if someone wanted to put up something on a billboard or on the side of a bus -- the company that owns that space is not required to put up something just because you have the money and you want them to. The major search engines don't want any part of this; that doesn't mean he can't start his own web site or find some other place that will take his material and his money. As it said in the article, this guy's a whiner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
Let me pile on with the others who have said, yes you can. There are numerous cases where anti-abortion groups wanted to run ads on television showing dead fetuses and such but were denied by the stations in question. The groups claimed discrimination and other things but the courts consistently have held that television stations and such do not have to run the ads.
Here are cases involving billboard companies refusing to run ads because of their content:
North Georgia [accessnorthga.com]
Crawford Texas [salon.com]
Hollywood [msn.com]
Times Square [cnn.com]
I know for a fact that Lamar Advertising refused to run ads in my area from anti-Bush people during the last campaign.
Here's a story from last year (2006) when CBS refused to run two ads during the Super Bowl. One was for PETA and the other was anti-Bush. Link [commondreams.org]
So yes, you can deny someone advertisement on a whim just like a restaurant has the right to refuse someone service for any reason they so choose.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
If you don't like the content, yes you can.
Private entities are generally able to discrimate for pretty much any reason, so long as the reason is directly related to the transaction at hand. Theaters can refuse to hire an actor based on skin color. Churches can fire a priest for changing his religion. Gyms can turn away paraplegic clients. Publishers can reject content they simply don't like.
The corellation must be direct, however. Theaters can't fire an actor for changing religion, gyms can't turn away clients based on race, and churchs can't discriminate over paraplegy.
Parent
This was settled along time ago (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to guess that any lawyers involved got their bucks and left. [wikipedia.org]
Oh, and it's only censorship if the bugmit does it.
If you or I (or google) choose to not say something, that's free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
The judges take each item and reply that it doesn't apply and dismisses each claim. Google et.al. are not Inns, Shopping Malls are private companies and not subject to free speech laws. He's not a citizen of Delaware so not applicable. No actual damages occurred so no claims are valid.
The only charge left is breach of contract between Google and this guy.
The interesting thing in general that I learned was that judges and lawyers are basically researchers. They take each point and find case law that's already been rendered and reference it in their judgements. The case is actually more interesting reading because of that.
[John]
I agree in a way... (Score:2)
However, freedom of speech? Come On! Is it a political opponents free speech to display their damn ad in my front yard now...or wait, would that be ME displaying an ad for say HUSTLER on my front lawn and protected by free speech?
Winner! (Score:3, Funny)
Google, etc Reject Ads From Marijuana Websites (Score:3, Interesting)
And since the major paid ad services are basically an oligopoly, that leaves such objectionable websites with little to no alternatives...
Even worse, Google, Yahoo, etc can choose to reject / demote websites they don't agree with in their free search listings too at any time...
Freedom of speech is all well and good in the marketplace, but tends to severely breakdown in an oligopoly environment.
Ron
Anybod else see liability issue with this?? (Score:2)
Right to speak includes right not to carry other's (Score:4, Interesting)
The right to speak includes - outside of some very narrow exceptions - the right not to carry someone else's opinions as well. Some cases have ruled that even public transit agencies have the right to choose not to carry certain ads. Further cases have refined that such that, for example, corporations have the right to have public opinions and to make them public. But it's also important to note that a private organization that publishes material has a right (within certain limits) to decide what it will or won't carry. You can't carry ads which are themselves illegal, and conversely, many cases have held that a newspaper has the right to choose not to carry certain materials if they don't want to.
A state law in Florida attempted to do for newspapers what the Fairness Doctrine [wikipedia.org] did for television stations: require when a newspaper supported a political candidate or provided space to one, that they had to also give space to others, or when they expressed an opinion they had to give time to the other side, or something like that, I'm not exactly certain which it was. Courts found that requirement unconstitutional and struck it down.
Now, the only time that a particular place can be required to carry someone's message is when they are considered a common carrier (such as a telephone, telegraph or cable tv system). They generally were required to provide service to anyone who could pay the same rates as anyone else, because they were granted an exclusive license to operate, or, today, they have the use of a limited resource - the public right of way - to provide service to customers, since the customers can't build their own phone lines across the roads (the way, say, anyone can buy a car and drive it on the highway), they have to provide service to anyone who can pay.
The ostensible reason the Supreme Court upheld the Fairness Doctrine with respect to broadcast stations is that they have a license to use extremely limited airwaves and should not be permitted to monopolize something which is a public resource. Of course, this is a hard argument to make today because the television stations tend to presume that they own the airspace they have and any dispute of their exclusive rights should be resisted vigorously, hence the usual fights over even small and marhginal organizations operating low power television. But the argument still can be applied; not everyone can run a television station because "their ain't that much room available" in the airspace.
Now, it's arguable that none of these search engine companies that accept ads are in any way a user or licensee of a limited or public resource or have some special condition that requires them to in some way be declared to be common carriers.
Before anyone else flames me (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Off topic :: Firehose (Score:5, Interesting)
To descend even further offtopic, I'd like to publically apologise to the Slashdot Editor for all the flack they've gotten from me over the quality of stories on the front page. The submissions are as a rule really quite bad. Not awful, though there are the occassional moronic posts and even a few spam ads. The majority of submissions just, aren't very good.
Long rambling paragraphs filled with personal diatribe and hyperbole. Spelling mistakes. Raw urls instead of anchor tags. Summaries that are too long, too short, incoherant, undescriptive or misleading. Headlines without any capitalisation, in the wrong section or with the wrong topic. Duplicated and resent submissions. Laborious submitted journals. Submissions consisting of nothing but a bookmark, or one solitary link with "check this out" on it. Most of the good submissions coming from the same authors again and again.
I would estimate, that of the filtered submissions, those above the equivilant of a moderation of 1, about 1 in 15 could be considered as a potential candidate for the front page. 90%+ of my votes so far have been negative. It's really that bad in there folks. Cut the eds a little slack when the next dupe comes around. Well, not too much slack.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How far does 'Free Speech' extend in advertisin (Score:3, Informative)
No, we pretty much have the same rule as you do but since it's rarely enforced, people like Kevin Trudeau can continue to peddle crap which claims to 'cure' dieting even though by claiming such, he is required to submit his products for testing to verify their claims. Since you're not from the U.S., any product which claims to cure an affliction must be test
Re:How far does 'Free Speech' extend in advertisin (Score:3, Interesting)
However, this case isn't about false advertising, it's about search engines refusing to advance one idiot's personal views under the guise of advertising. So the judge is using the First Amendment to reinforce the idea that said engines don't have
Re:How far does 'Free Speech' extend in advertisin (Score:2)
Re: Not bass-ackwards at all (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's extend this guy's argument a bit. It would seem as though he's suggesting that I should be able to force my local newspaper to run an ad decrying that newspaper. Or that Google could be forced to run an ad for googlesucks.com. It's an absurd suggestion.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe you should take a closer look, yourself. The US Constitution is a list of restrictions on what the government can do. Private entities are not bound by it.
The first amendment only prevents the government from restricting speech. As Google is not a government agency, they are free to restrict any speech they want to, on their property.
The guy who modded you "insightful" should go take a look at it, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you were working in a shop, and someone walked in, picked up a coke, and walked to the counter to buy it, you'd serve him, right? But you'd still have the right not to serve him, if he's being anti-social or smoking in your shop or something. Something *you* don't agree with.
The right to free speech is also the right to not say something if you don't beleive what you're saying. This works on the same basis. It may be discriminating against a group, but that group exists be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, this right has been stripped from us in most circumstances. If you choose not to serve someone, you're going to get sued for discrimination based on whatever...
Personally, I think anyone should be able to refuse service to
Negitive Free Speech Rights (Score:5, Informative)
For example, in Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), the Supreme Court overturned New Hampshire's motor vehicle regulation that required motorists to display license plates declaring "Live Free or Die". The court held that a person can not be forced by the government to display an ideological message on his private property. In West Virginia State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624
(1943), the Supreme Court held that students did not have to recite the pledge of allegiance, since the government could not force a student to declare a belief.
Lastly, a private individual is not subject to the requirements of the 1st Amendment. A private individual is not the government. While the government can't force me to say anything, I might take on contractual obligations to make statements. However, if I fail to make those statements, a court would not force me to make those statements. It would hold me liable for money damages, unless it could find a very compelling reason to make me speak.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Capitalist society relies on free competition to compel businesses to adopt an "enlightened self interest" approach - i.e. you are unlikely to turn away business (that will probably end up going to a competitor) without a good reason. This is all fine and dandy until a few big players reach such a dominant posit
Re: (Score:2)
And that is why the FCC gets to regulate the airwa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For anyone who thinks this guy's right to free speech is being violated: nobody is denying this guy his right to free speech, they're only denying him their venue to do it. There's no constitutional right to force someone else to allow you to use their venue to peddle your free speech. Period.
Nobody is telling this guy he can't say the things he's saying, he's got his own websites that prove his free speech is alive and well
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free Speech? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then I guess you'll be really upset to learn that they have even MORE rights: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
See that little "of the press" part? They can publish (or not publish) what they like - so long as they aren't violating the law. Editorial decisions have significant protections under the US Constitution.
Parent
Get your facts straight. (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me shed a bit of light on the obvious misunderstanding. Companies are not regarded as people. If they would, there would not exist separate laws for companies. The last time I checked, companies had significantly fewer rights when making purchases, and I can't see any requirements for private individuals to publish audited accounts of their lives. Per definition and logic, claiming that companies are regarded as equal to people is therefore plainly and irrefutably false. It is, again, completely incorrect and ignorant to claim that companies are by law considered to be in all ways equivalent of people.
What is however completely correct is to say that companies are considered to be 'legal persons', a special type of person (that is, again, not equal to a person on the street, in case you missed it the first time) for whom there exist separate laws. The rights of the 'legal person' does however have some significant overlaps with that of actual persons. This includes, for example, the right to not have published lies about them. That's a right individuals have, and a right companies have.
You would probably argue that it's a right companies should have - I would argue it's absolutely, by pure moral standards, equally right. Should people have a right to make placards of you with "Pedophile!" under and staple across town? You would say not. What if five people band together to do business, and call themselves a trade name, does that make it _morally acceptable_ for people to publish "This company trades in child sex!" placards about their _legal person_? Obviously not. The rights that overlap between legal persons and actual persons are for a large part very morally justifiable.
In short,
1. Companies were never considered "equal to individuals".
2. They do however have a significant overlap in rights and obligations with actual people. The difference is largely that companies have significantly less rights and more obligations.
3. The rights that overlap are, in my view, completely morally justifiable. Including the right to free speech, and the right not to have lies (incorrect facts, not opinions) published about you.
You are naturally free to disagree, but rather than the current mindless repeating scattershot of "companies are obviously not people and shouldn't be, that is the source of all our problems", please phrase your arguments in terms of specific rights that you feel companies should not be allowed from a moral perspective and the reasons for and against, bearing in mind that you still feel those rights are very important for individuals.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)