Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.162.48.54

Forum Moderators: mademetop

Message Too Old, No Replies

Search Engines Not Required to Run All Ads

     
5:43 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Administrator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator brett_tabke is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Sept 21, 1999
posts:38057
votes: 12


[marketwatch.com...]

Stephen Langdon, a Winter Park, Fla., resident who operates www.ncjusticefraud.com, which purports to expose fraud by North Carolina government officials, and www.chinaisevil.com, which is meant to highlight alleged atrocities committed by the Chinese government.

...ruled that when it comes to advertising, search engines are not bound by the First Amendment's free-speech guarantees. Based on that, the judge then ruled that search engines do indeed have a right to filter what each deems to be objectionable content.

6:15 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Feb 13, 2005
posts:1077
votes: 0


I'd think since it's their house and their rules, they can pretty much deny any ad they want to, no?
6:19 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Mar 8, 2002
posts:2897
votes: 0


Seems logocal to me. Otherwise an accountancy search engine (or directory) could be sued for not listing a shoe shop. That would be absurd.

Then again - it's not my constitution.

6:41 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member jomaxx is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 6, 2002
posts:4768
votes: 0


This makes perfect sense as long as they have policies (which they do) and are sticking to them. They'd probably get into trouble if they tried to wing it and make a judgment call on a case-by-case basis.
6:41 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member caveman is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member

joined:Apr 17, 2003
posts:3744
votes: 0


I personally think it is a good decision.

Media companies are private companies. It is a long-held tradition that a print magazine, for example, is allowed to be selective, so that burger ads don't run inside of high end fashion content. Ads are a part of the fabric of the medium and of each media vehicle, and the seller should have the right to choose what ads it accepts. Perhaps more relevant, ads are part of a commerical exchange that involves a buyer and seller, with both parties seeking to make a profit from their endeavors. This has nothing to do with free speech.

This case, OTOH, is quite different to the questions about whether the SE's should censor listings out of their organic SERP's. The bar for censorship should be (and is) much, much higher in that arena. Though personally, I don't think it's high enough, given the arbitrary nauture of some of the decisions from the major SE's WRT listings they are unwilling to display, relating to both content and region.

7:16 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

New User

10+ Year Member

joined:Mar 14, 2005
posts:14
votes: 0


I'm not constitutional scholar, but doesn't the first amendment keep the Government from preventing free speach? I don't think it applies to individuals or business.
7:20 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:June 9, 2003
posts:1908
votes: 0


Cymbal is correct. By the same token, I'm perfectly within my rights to prohibit certain words and topics from being used on my forums.
7:48 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Moderator from US 

WebmasterWorld Administrator robert_charlton is a WebmasterWorld Top Contributor of All Time 10+ Year Member Top Contributors Of The Month

joined:Nov 11, 2000
posts:11440
votes: 202


...when it comes to advertising, search engines are not bound by the First Amendment's free-speech guarantees.

I agree with the decision to a point, but some aspects of this that might limit advocacy on the web make me uneasy.

To cite some parallels in other media... Suppose all TV networks decided not to run campaign ads for the party not in power. Advocacy ads in newspapers have from time to time been a significant part of political reform.

Any constitutional lawyers around to tell us how that line is drawn?

8:06 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Junior Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Sept 28, 2004
posts:112
votes: 0


To cite some parallels in other media... Suppose all TV networks decided not to run campaign ads for the party not in power.

There is a sizable body of law regulating political speech, including equal time provisions for political advertising.

8:18 pm on Feb 27, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

WebmasterWorld Senior Member 10+ Year Member

joined:Jan 30, 2001
posts:1739
votes: 0


>Suppose all TV networks decided not to run campaign ads for the party not in power.

No need to suppose. Just try to sell a right-to-life ad to your local station.

1:54 am on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Senior Member

joined:Oct 27, 2001
posts:10210
votes: 0


The First Amendment has never required anyone (including television stations) to run ads for political parties, organizations, or points of view.

The First Amendment has never required TV stations or networks to grant "equal time," either.

Restrictions on advertising, the now-defunct "equal time" provision, etc. have been the result of specific laws, not of the First Amendment. (Indeed, one could argue that at least some of those laws have been in conflict with the First Amendment.)

3:59 am on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Full Member

10+ Year Member

joined:Nov 27, 2005
posts:255
votes: 0


First amendment is clearly a restriction/limitation on government powers. Google, despite all their power, is not the government.
4:52 am on Feb 28, 2007 (gmt 0)

Preferred Member

10+ Year Member

joined:May 20, 2004
posts:469
votes: 0


...doesn't the first amendment keep the Government from preventing free speach?

First amendment is clearly a restriction/limitation on government powers.

Exactly!