Google Ads Are a Free Speech Issue 148
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."
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Wahh wahh... Google/Yahoo/Microsoft won't display the ads I want them to."
Re:Free Speech?? (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 because of human thought, not something you're born with. You can't just set up an anti-walmart group (or whatever) and expect everyone to bow to your right to free speech if it damages theirs.
Re:Talk about bass-ackwards! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:interesting (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. He could come up with his own advertising system, or try one of the other ones that, instead of targetting searches, would actually target politically oriented sites. There's no guarantee of anything.
A second point is that if I ad block, I'm not denying advertisers their right to free speech, either. Free speech doesn't mean you have the right to force people to listen.
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.
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Talk about bass-ackwards! (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:Human Rights (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.
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.
Re:Free Speech? (Score:1, Insightful)
How often do newspapers censor paid ads?
If internet businesses had developed a business model different from TV and newspapers, such as novels you normally buy without paid advertising, I might feel differently, but that's the business model that their geniuses have adopted, and which we fools support.
(hence the need for spam blockers, adblocker and RIP)
Re:Down With The Big Dogs! (Score:2, Insightful)
To have a capitalist market, you need to have controls, but you can't have it set up so that it's selective; you can't just selectively pick on the big companies because they're big, because then, you're telling smaller companies, essentially, that they don't WANT to get too big, because they'll be cut down to size. You're essentially saying "You all have freedom to do whatever you want... EXCEPT YOU GUYS! You're too successful! >:["
What you are advocating is not Capitalism, because your ideal has more to do with socialism than capitalism. You really can't have it both ways.