PDA

View Full Version : Google forced to accept anti-abortion advertising



Nieninque
09-18-2008, 03:23 AM
Google forced to accept anti-abortion advertising

By Sarah Cassidy
Thursday, 18 September 2008
The Christian Institute's prominent web link on a Google search

Google Has been forced to abandon its ban on religious organisations placing anti-abortion ads on its site after it was sued by a pro-life charity.

Google settled out of court with The Christian Institute, a UK-based non-denominational charity, yesterday and will now allow religious groups to place factual and campaigning ads about abortion. The new policy will apply world-wide with immediate effect.

The Christian Institute wanted to advertise with Google by paying so that when the word "abortion" was typed into the search engine, a link to a web page on its views would pop up on the right-hand side of the screen.

The link reading "UK abortion law - news and views on abortion from the Christian Institute" would enable users to click on it to access the institute's website. The institute had hoped to advertise its online articles on pro-life issues ahead of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill being debated in the House of Commons this summer.

However, Google refused to display the ad in March because its policy banned the advertising of sites that mixed "abortion and religion-related content".

The Christian Institute started legal action against Google on the grounds that it was infringing the Equality Act 2006 by discriminating against Christian groups. The charity argued that Google accepted ads for abortion clinics, secular pro-abortion sites and secularist sites which attack religion. It demanded damages, costs and permission to display the ad.

A spokesman for the Christian Institute, Mike Judge, said that while the exact terms of the settlement were confidential, the charity was "absolutely delighted" at the outcome and to have its ad online yesterday. "It is a victory for common sense," he said. "We just wanted to display some factual information in the run up to the Embryology Bill going through Parliament.

"Obviously it's a controversial subject and we have conservative Christian views but we are never extreme in our language so we were very shocked to be blocked from advertising for use of inappropriate content. I think this is a victory for all religious groups that will benefit many people in the future."

A spokesman for Google said the case had prompted a review of its policy to ensure it was fair to all advertisers.

"The issue of abortion is an emotive subject and Google does not take a particular side. Over the past few months we have been reviewing our abortion ads policy in order to make sure it was fair, up to date and consistent with local customs and practices. Following the review we have decided to amend our policy, creating a level playing field and enabling religious associations to place ads on abortion in a factual way."

From The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/google-forced-to-accept-antiabortion-advertising-934241.html)

radamanthys
09-18-2008, 03:43 AM
Meh. I guess I agree.

Methais
09-18-2008, 04:00 AM
The Christian Institute started legal action against Google on the grounds that it was infringing the Equality Act 2006 by discriminating against Christian groups.

I never realized that Christians were the only people against abortion.

Mighty Nikkisaurus
09-18-2008, 04:01 AM
There's already so much Pro-Life bullshit "facts" in websites that come up on a Google search on abortion that ads aren't really too huge of a deal.

I can only hope that someone considering an abortion who then uses the internet to look up facts is familiar enough with searching for information that they know to how to cross-check and look up specific information. Frankly I find a lot of the blatantly false "information" (i.e. having an abortion "drastically" reduces your fertility) and awful pictures (many taken from emergency abortion and miscarriage photos from textbooks, hardly any from actual voluntary abortions in the early stages of pregnancy) to be disgusting and nothing short of manipulative.

That being said, I am heavily against censorship, even if it goes against my personal beliefs and even if it contains material I personally find objectionable. I guess I view this as just another challenge that Pro-Choice people need to overcome when it comes to educating women about their options. I can't be upset or whatever with Google on this decision, I think they're acting in the fairest manner they think they can.

AestheticDeath
09-18-2008, 04:52 AM
Sucks that you can be sued by a customer to grant business.

They should be able to tell anyone no, for whatever reason.

Regardless of what the info is about.

TheEschaton
09-18-2008, 09:29 AM
Odd, here I always thought Google was a private sector business, and could deny people advertising as it saw fit.

NocturnalRob
09-18-2008, 09:35 AM
Odd, here I always thought Google was a private sector business, and could deny people advertising as it saw fit.

i was under the same impression.

TheEschaton
09-18-2008, 09:45 AM
Maybe British law is different, IE stupid.

Some Rogue
09-18-2008, 09:48 AM
The Equality Act (2006) is a precursor to a promised Single Equality Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Equality_Bill), whose aim is to combine all of the equality enactments within Great Britain and provide comparable protections across all equality strands. Those explicitly mentioned by the Equality Act (2006) include age; disability; gender; proposed, commenced or completed gender reassignment; race; religion or belief and sexual orientation.


That was sooo hard to look up.

NocturnalRob
09-18-2008, 09:53 AM
Maybe British law is different, IE stupid.

motherfuckers wore long red jackets in the wilderness when going to war. they drink warm beer. i posit that there are numerous examples of their stupidity.

TheEschaton
09-18-2008, 09:56 AM
Well, sorry for taking what I know (U.S. equality measures, which only regulate government action) and thinking regulating private action would be silly.

Gelston
09-18-2008, 09:59 AM
Did they sending letters to google, and serving Google in the US with their lawsuit? If so, they would have to fail under US Courts, which don't have that law, an could tell Britian's stupid little law to piss off.

A similiar case happened with Yahoo and some frenchies. Yahoo won. The case even ha this sentence in the judgement....

We should not allow a foreign court order to be used as leverage to quash constitutionally protected speech by denying the United States-based target an adjudication of its constitutional rights in federal court.

Trouble
09-18-2008, 10:01 AM
Google probably has some sort of base of operations in the UK though, which would put it under their laws. Right? I'm not an attorney.

Some Rogue
09-18-2008, 10:02 AM
Well, sorry for taking what I know (U.S. equality measures, which only regulate government action) and thinking regulating private action would be silly.

Really? So private business don't have to be accessible to the disabled? They can throw out black people anytime they feel like just for being black?

Gelston
09-18-2008, 10:03 AM
Why would they? They can run everything from the US.

CrystalTears
09-18-2008, 10:05 AM
They have offices all over the world.

Gelston
09-18-2008, 10:05 AM
Does Yahoo? Thats really the only thing I felt like looking for. I'm sure there are other examples for internet juridictions.

Founded Menlo Park, California (7 September 1998)[1]
Founder Sergey Brin
Larry Page
Headquarters Googleplex, Mountain View, California,
United States

I think they could appeal to a US Court and get this British stuff removed. Although some of the articles I've read have said Goggle did it "willingly" upon reviewing their own policy.

Some Rogue
09-18-2008, 10:07 AM
http://www.google.com/corporate/address.html

Gelston
09-18-2008, 10:08 AM
Nope, looks like Yahoo is only in California. Google is retarded.

Some Rogue
09-18-2008, 10:13 AM
Yeah, those retarded multi-billion dollar companies.

Gelston
09-18-2008, 10:15 AM
They could have been a retarded multibillion-ollar corporation located within ONE Country so it doesn't have to follow laws about what it has to put on its internet site based on laws from the countries its in.

CrystalTears
09-18-2008, 10:17 AM
We're calling the wrong people retarded here.

Some Rogue
09-18-2008, 10:18 AM
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a64/lrenzo2/Ugh.jpg

Gelston
09-18-2008, 10:18 AM
Everyone is retarded atleast a little bit.

NocturnalRob
09-18-2008, 10:19 AM
We're calling the wrong people retarded here.

You're retarded

CrystalTears
09-18-2008, 10:19 AM
Everyone is retarded atleast a little bit.
You especially in this thread.

Gelston
09-18-2008, 10:20 AM
Enjoy!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=abortion&aq=f&oq=

TheEschaton
09-18-2008, 10:25 AM
In the U.S., a private business can do whatever it wants for whatever reason, stated or internal, as long as A) it does no harm or infringe on the rights of others (non-access to advertising wouldn't fall under this), and B) the company doesn't serve some sort of public function, and is the only way to do so.

In that way, there are still golf clubs that are white male only, the Boy Scouts can say "no homosexuals", and so on, so forth. We may think they're silly for doing so, but they can.

As for Int'l law jurisdiction, the U.S. has long been a dualist state, and has considered the international law system a quaint thing they don't necessary have to follow if a domestic law says otherwise - IE, in the viewpoint of the U.S., the Constitution trumps international law. Some would call this idiocy, most people call it sovereignty. I don't know how I feel about it yet - Europe tends to be more monist (IE, international law and domestic law are part of the same system, int'l law being a higher level of domestic law), but still retain their sovereignty. Still trying to figure out how they strike that balance.

-TheE-

Some Rogue
09-18-2008, 10:30 AM
Does Yahoo? Thats really the only thing I felt like looking for. I'm sure there are other examples for internet juridictions.


Yahoo does have foreign offices too.


Like this one for example..

Yahoo! Europe
125 Shaftesbury Ave.
London
WC2H 8AD, United Kingdom

CrystalTears
09-18-2008, 10:32 AM
I didn't think private clubs like Boy Scouts and golf clubs are considered businesses and subject to the same rules and policies.

Nieninque
09-18-2008, 10:34 AM
Yeah, Seany Digital is a prick

Some Rogue
09-18-2008, 10:35 AM
NO U

Gelston
09-18-2008, 10:37 AM
Yahoo does have foreign offices too.


Like this one for example..

Yahoo! Europe
125 Shaftesbury Ave.
London
WC2H 8AD, United Kingdom

Yes, I saw. Which is where the retarded comments came from.
SCRATCH ABOVE, I didn't notice the Yahoo part.

Hmm, they got out of the law suit with the Frenchies. Maybe Google does have a chance! Probably not since they settled though, and their more-than-likely awesome lawyers told them too, which is probably a lot cheaer then fighting it.

CrystalTears
09-18-2008, 10:39 AM
Yes, I saw. Which is where the retarded comments came from.


Nope, looks like Yahoo is only in California. Google is retarded.

????

Gelston
09-18-2008, 10:40 AM
????

See edit above.