Google's Ban of an Anti-MoveOn.org Ad 476
Whip-hero writes in with an Examiner.com story about Google's rejection of an ad critical of MoveOn.org. The story rehashes the controversy over MoveOn.org's ad that ran in the NYTimes on the first day of testimony of Gen. Petraeus's Senate testimony. The rejected ad was submitted on behalf of Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins — its text is reproduced in the article. The implication, which has been picked up by many blogs on the other side of the spectrum from MoveOn.org, is that Google acted out of political favoritism. Not so, says Google's policy counsel: Google's trademark policy allows any trademark holder to request that its marks not be used in ads; and MoveOn.org had made such a request.
Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be news if they submitted an ad WITHOUT infringing on a trademark, and that was rejected.
This is retarded. (Score:4, Insightful)
An organization saw their trademark being used without their permission in an advertisement, and asked that it be taken down.
If this was Microsoft running an ad that said "Ubuntu Linux promotes terrorism," and Ubuntu asked Google to remove it, would you get all angry about how evil Ubuntu and Google are?
Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What about the other ads with trademarks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
All of the paranoia, all of the rhetoric, all of te tin foil goes away once it's the other side being muzzled, instead of yours. More proof (as if any where needed) of the complete lack of principles from most of the political slashdot crew.
Re:Al Gore on the board (Score:5, Insightful)
http://investor.google.com/board.html [google.com]
Both Gore and Schmidt are on Apple's board of directors however: http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/bod.html [apple.com]
Just because you're accusing the search tool of partisan hackery doesn't mean it should stop you before making your own partisan hacked up assaults. Not to mention that Al Gore isn't even involved in this case.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"That damn liberal media, they're trying to silence a candidate! Lets vote for her out of spite!"
Ah, more Liberal censorship (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sooo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
Outright defamation is not the same as criticism. Microsoft could and would get sued for that ad, and Google could get sued for it, too.
MoveOn made a political ad criticizing a person by name -- so does that mean it'd be okay to criticize those in MoveOn responsible for the ad, by name, in a rival ad? This is a political thing, and Petraeus, MoveOn is a public figure -- they're fair game in the political world.
Re:Well (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the article, that's what happened! According to the article's quoted intellectual property expert:
But he called Google's removal of the Collins ads "troubling." Coleman says that there is no such requirement under trademark law and that Google appears to be selectively enforcing its policy.
"In a recent ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that there is anything like a cause of action under the Lanham Act, the statue governing trademark law in the United States, for so-called 'trademark disparagement,' " Coleman said. The courts have also rejected the notion that the use of a trademark as a search term is a "legally cognizable use" as a trademark use under federal trademark law, he added. Coleman is also general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association.
Free Speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
Making ads with other people's trademarks should be protected, like if I'm some crappy beige box PC maker I can't really use trademarks for Windows or Intel freely. And if the owners of those trademarks complain the advertiser should take down those ads, to maintain the quality of the advertising.
Google really has only two possible scenarios I see. They are either politically motivated (the company + employees constitutes the largest Democratic campaign contributer in the district for the past few years). Or they are inflexible to the point of being blindly stupid.
Take your pick google, evil or stupid.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sooo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Silly (Score:2, Insightful)
Why has this not been removed?
Moveon.org can dish it out but they sure cant take it.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Trademark Law also has a fair use doctrine, which includes using trademarks nominatively. Otherwise you'd see Coke and Pepsi suing each other whenever one of them put out an ad comparing the two.
The article mentions anti-Blackwater and anti-Exxon ads as being "permitted" by Google, but it doesn't say whether or not the companies have requested takedowns.
Either way, if their trademark use policy doesn't allow for nominative use, it's faulty and needs to be fixed. Plenty of companies run comparative ads (our product versus Competitor X's product), which generally require the other company to be identified.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:1, Insightful)
are they, as a corporation, not allowed to have political leanings?
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're being played. Used by the wealthy and powerful, tricked into fighting over false grievances while the elites literally get away with murder.
Take a glance at TV any time, and you'll see ludicrous BS like "Hannity" and "Colmes." I put the names in quotes because they aren't real people; they are characters. Each is a bumbling caricature of what the opposite political party is supposed to look like. Republicans are supposed to hate the Colmes character, and Democrats are supposed to hate the Hannity character. In reality, neither character says anything reasonable nor worthwhile -- they are purely scripted to trigger the hate-phrases of their respective goading target.
This is just a single example, but when you start to look around you, you notice that almost everything in high-level politics works this way. There are a few exceptions among politicians, but they rarely get elected because they don't play along. Without accepting bribes from wealthy donors, a politician can't afford the ad spots needed to gain popular recognition. Likewise, there are a few exceptions in mainstream media, but they don't last long if they disrupt the flow of advertising money or if they offend their wealthy owners.
Why are we being played?
When we think that our enemies are our neighbors, we will not stand up to the megacorporations fleecing us, and their sycophants in Congress who pass laws to help them steal our money (in return for a small portion of it themselves). We'll quibble among ourselves while they get away with whatever they like. No, the wealthy and powerful aren't concertedly working together against us -- but they're much closer to each other than they are to the teeming masses far below them. They all benefit when we are their slave labor.
We end up supporting the court jester who appears to most closely support our views. In truth, the jesters are all just playing their parts, and they'll all get paid well at the end of the night. We, the paying audience, don't seem to realize it's just a show.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they are here too, but it instead of it being championed and echoed, it is being dropped as "well, those are the rules, obey them and move along now".
And to think that a group who pulls underhanded tactics i the name of free speech would be the ones to personally attempt to stop it when someone else is doing it. Nice insight Moveon
Re:using a trademark infringing a trademark (Score:3, Insightful)
They probably implemented the policy to stop people from running blatant smear campaigns via AdWords. This problem is perhaps more threatening via AdWords simply because it is automated and potentially anonymous. If it got out of hand, it could lose Google a lot of money as well as the interest of advertisers. Remember, ads were the big pot o' gold that dried up completely during the burst, and now that you can make money in internet advertising again, they are probably looking at every way that could self-destruct.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:4, Insightful)
As pointed out elsewhere using a corporation's name is not infringement. Google's policy is obviously a shield against frivolous infringement litigation, but it is stifling criticism of those hiding behind baseless trademark claims. This is a demonstration of just how dangerous Google's position of monopolistic power over information has become.
I would have hoped that a Slashdotter would be more astute in protecting his rights.
Re:Partisans' perception of their own position. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, whoops. Odd, I thought that's what I wrote but I guess I didn't.
If you think this is the only example of Google's antipathy towards "Red State America", you haven't been paying attention....
I think Google perceives that it can afford to pull these sorts of stunts, or e.g. never making a special page for Memorial or Veterans Day, without significant cost.
A) They can. That's my entire point. Boycotts based on "Culture War" BS never make hardly any sort of impact if a company refuses to flinch in the first month or two.
B) They've never made a page for Arbor Day. Does that mean that they hate trees? They've never celebrated Labor Day, either. Does that mean that they hate workers rights? Are you going to read something into the fact that they haven't celebrated President's Day or Columbus Day? Plus, frankly, they'd be more likely to touch off a political firestorm by action than by inaction.
The real problem here is that partisans of all stripes is that they have a grudge against the world. Petty crap like the lack of celebration for two war memorial holidays are seen as validation of paranoid beliefs that the world is filled with large institutions that are out to make your life suck for their own selfish reasons.
Liberal partisans worry about elites trying to destroy the American way of life for their own conscienceless benefit. Conservative partisans worry about the same exact thing for different definitions of destroying the American way of life. In the end, it all comes down to pervasive confirmation bias and an ill temper with the world.
Why should Google pay any attention to people who find offense at everything around them in society and who don't have the attention span nor the willpower to boycott doing business with them -- especially when their complaints are nothing but making a mountain out of a molehill? Sane conservatives will realize that this is a huge to-do about nothing, and the fringe ax-grinders are too small to really care about.
In the time it would take for a court case by MoveOn over trademark infringement to fight its way through courts, this whole mess will be forgotten by all but the most ardent, paranoid grudge-carriers. Even if that weren't true, no company is going to deliberately break the law and expose themselves to liability just to keep a few political loudmouths happy unless said company is run by political loudmouths of the same stripe.
Google only did what's logical, and political partisans have way too puffed up of an opinion of their own importance.
Re:Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:using a trademark infringing a trademark (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole power of the ad was derived from the the trademarke MoveOn.org, if you read it with a generic liberal replaced, it just doesn't have the same impact. And that is why ultimately it was a legitimate request.
The group itself has a name which is likely in violation of trademark protections. As much as I would love for somebody to put MoveOn.org in their place, this was a legitimate move on the part of Google to try and protect a trademark.
the court says: (Score:5, Insightful)
Therefore, Google's policy is When we receive a complaint from a trademark owner, we only investigate the use of the trademark in ad text. If the advertiser is using the trademark in ad text, we will require the advertiser to remove the trademark and prevent them from using it in ad text in the future. Please note that we will not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint.
Their position is the only one that will increase shareholder value.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheers.
Was the original ad all that offensive? (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly was so offensive about MoveOn.org's ad campaign [moveon.org] in the first place?
Petraeus has handled the Iraq war poorly, and in several cases lied outright to the American people. MoveOn.org called him out on it. Isn't that how democratic politics and free speech are supposed to work?
It's no secret that many Americans feel that the government misled the general public in order to bolster support for their war, and the ad was a simple reflection of this reality. It wasn't even a baseless personal attack -- they provide quotations, and even cite their sources.
Perhaps the most troubling part of the whole saga is that the house passed a resolution condemning the advert 341-79, and the senate 71-29 (With all 49 republicans, and 22 democrats voting in favor). The president even got in on the action.
This Time editorial [time.com] seems to have the best summation of the whole situation.
Is this all the legislative branch is good for these days? Sternly wagging their fingers at political action groups, and listening to baseball testimony?
Re:Sooo.... (Score:2, Insightful)
All sarcasm aside, it's important for people to remember that this isn't a First Amendment or free speech issue. You're already allowed to use a trademark all you want as long as you're referring to the the actual product or service that the trademark represents, because of a doctrine of "trademark fair use". So, even though almost every company has a registered trademark on their name and the names of their products, there's nothing they can do to stop you from referring to them by name. This is how companies can run comparison ads that portray the competition in a bad light. If every use of trademark for advertising had to be authorized by the owner, they'd never allow it for such ads.
Google just has this policy of their own. To avoid controversy and confrontation with trademark holders, they simply always allow an ad containing trademarks to be removed at the owner's request. I don't particularly like the practice, but of course, if you were looking to make some comment about a product, service, or organization, you're perfectly free to just post it online somewhere. Surprise, it gets on Google anyway! Now, if they allowed similar removals from their search results, that would be a horse of a different color.
Re:Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
If you spend some time without insurance, BTW, you'll find you don't have to be that poor for a medical calamity to wreck your family.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now google's tough break in the situation being what it is when they enforced the policy isn't as important then what Moveon.org claims to be and what they did. It is obvious that the use of the trademark was fair and legal, and it is obvious that it was over political speech. Now, anyone at google could have said, wait, what is this? and looked at the policy, the ad, and made the decision over the merits of the case. Some people tend to think they actually did that and made the decision to pull the ad.
But what my real problem is about, is all the responses that act like there is nothing wrong with squashing political speech in this way. The entire sarcasm I put in there was the exact same arguments made over the ban on flag burning that pissed everyone off. I was attempting to outrage people with those comments but it seems as if they are acceptable now. For some reasons, the majority of people don't seem to care when it works out to benefit a side they like. And I think that is completely wrong. Either free speech means something or it doesn't. And yes, in almost every other media outlet, there are special rules concerning political speech that force it to be carried. These rules even force the lowest rate for the slot to be charged. So expecting Google to keep an ad up isn't to far of a stretch. I just hope their actions doesn't create a storm of laws governing advertisements over the interweb.
I guess It would be funny to see hillary2008.com or whatever forced to advertise or carry a banner ad for rudy or barak. But if you ask me, I am disappointed all around, Once for google pulling the ad, regardless of their policy, once again for moveon.org's hand in it, and probably mostly by the lack of outrage when it effect the "other side" of the issue. And that makes you wonder if all the other outragfe isn't just some sort of way to impose a political idea instead of something we should truly be outraged over. Political speech should be something on top of the list.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's better to adhere to a strict policy. I like this policy because it's fully fair and automatically enforced programatically.
The senator's campaign should have hired some real ad copy writers and come up with a clever 2 sentence ad and placed that.
Re:Who the hell is MoveOn.org? (Score:3, Insightful)
And - yes I did take a look at their site and it was not really having any substance at all. So what is all the fuzz about? Even the anti-moveon must be a real bunch of losers just considering the ad... Viagra ads are much more fun.
Trademark Law (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a bunch of crap (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sooo.... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a trademark case. If the RNC told google to block any ads with the text 'republican national congress' in them, and they held a trademark for such, then Google would do so.
What a fool.
I can't think of any better way to eliminate political discourse than this. Every political entity should just trademark its name, and it can suppress any type of critical political ad. George Bush(tm). BS.
Trademarks were developed to eliminate brand confusion among commercial entities. They shouldn't be applicable to political entities. Use of any political organizations name should be fine on First Amendment grounds.
Google needs to start walking the 'do no evil' walk. It's not right for one of the world's biggest media companies to suppress protected political speech with which it disagrees.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, the left in this country is the model of hypocrisy on this issue. It loves civil rights and free speech unless it disagrees with what's being said - then censorship is fine. Look at the concerted smear campaign against Rush Limbaugh right now. Totally contrived, and yet even Congress is wasting time with it.
One hopes the electorate is paying close attention.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sooo.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The flip side of that coin is that "Democracy" in an absolute sense doesn't mean much. Saying "The United States is a democracy" means only that we have some degree of citizen participation, which is quite a weak statement. Every nation in the world can be construed to be a democracy in that sense.
"Democratic" does have a meaning in a relative sense, however. It does have meaning to say that something could be "more democratic" or "less democratic".
The people who resist calling the United States a democracy do have a point. Consider that, in our government of three branches, one of those branches is about as undemocratic as you could imagine: the judicial branch. The executive branch is indirectly democratic. And originally the Senate was also undemocratic.
I think it's a complex issue. The important message, in my opinion, is that we shouldn't hold up democracy as an ideal that we should seek to attain, but as a careful balance against a government framework and the rule of law.
Re:Sooo.... (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Obvious Anti-Microsoft / Anti-Proprietary Software bias and zealotous / rabid Pro-F/OSS bias
2) Obvious Anti-Conservative / Anti-Right-wing / Anti-Republican bias
3) Obvious Pro-Liberal / Left-wing / Pro-Democratic bias
If you don't see that from a historical point of view that all of the above are correct, you are either fairly new to Slashdot or insanely, incredulously naive.
Now, focusing on the thread's Topic:
Google has any right to deny or turn-down advertizers. They are not a Government agency nor an NGO - they are a for-profit enterprise that has the absolute right to choose whom advertizes on their service. The Anti-MoveOn.org people would have easily been able to slip-by on Google's trademark protection process for AdSense if they had never mentioned MoveOn.org in their AdSense request and then did the changer-roo at the actual website. Even by just changing some words could have simply allowed the content to be approved; something along the lines of "The Truth about MoveOn" or "Vital information about MoveOn". Yes, it's all in semantics, but I'm unable to find any trademark registration for "MoveOn"; there are several trademark registrations in connection with 501(c)(4) NPO registrations, but they all identify the organization as "MoveOn.Org" and *not* "MoveOn". If Susan Collin's staff would have thought this through a bit, they would have had no problems (and a open-and-shut case against Google if there had been problems) with the content they were giving to Google AdSense for their Ad campaign.
Here's the other side to that coin: If MoveOn.Org is a Political Action committee and generates political content for the politicians and issues they support and are focused on - which are 99.9999% in lock-step / goose-step with the Left-wing / Liberal / Democratic / Socialist ideals and goals - the content that they (MoveOn.Org) place with AdSense could quite easily be deemed as "Political Speech", and therefor protected under the 1st Ammendment. Consequently, Google would be forced by Federal Law to provide equal time and equal distribution of content created by those opposed to their ideals and goals.
I sincerely hope that someone from Susan Collin's campaign group or someone who is in politics here and who is opposed to the gestapo tactics that MoveOn.org uses reads this post - but chances are that they'll avoid the leftist / liberal / left-wing / socialist bent that is part of the fun of slashdot (and I mean fun, as in "Laughing at").
--ScottKin