Robert Cox has a piece running in today's Examiner which correctly notes that Google banned advertising from the campaign of Republican U.S. Senator Susan Collins (Maine) who used the liberal group, MoveOn.org in the content of the ad.
Here's an excerpt of Robert's piece which articulates the controversy:
Google bans anti-MoveOn.org ads
Internet giant Google has banned advertisements critical of MoveOn.org, the far-left advocacy group that caused a national uproar last month when it received preferential treatment from The New York Times for its “General Betray Us†message.
The ads banned by Google were placed by a firm working for Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ re-election campaign. Collins is seeking her third term.
Earlier this week, Google told Lance Dutson, president of Maine Coast Designs, that the ads he placed for Collins had been removed and would not be allowed to resume because they violated Google’s trademark policy.
Google’s Web site states, “Google takes allegations of trademark infringement very seriously and, as a courtesy, we’re happy to investigate matters raised by trademark owners.†That suggests Google acted in response to a complaint by MoveOn.org.
The banned advertisements said, “Susan Collins is MoveOn’s primary target. Learn how you can help†and “Help Susan Collins stand up to the MoveOn.org money machine.†The ads linked to Collins’ campaign Web site with a headline reading “MoveOn.org has made Susan Collins their #1 target.†The Collins Web site claims that MoveOn has contributed $250,000 to her likely Democratic opponent and has run nine ads against her costing nearly $1 million. The Web site also displays MoveOn.org’s controversial “General Betray Us†ad.
Cox quotes a lawyer as stating that Google’s actions are “troubling†because it appears to be selective removal by Google to defend MoveOn.org.
But let’s not jump to that assumption. Instead let's drill in to this a bit more to see if there’s another explanation for Google’s actions.
First, Lance Dutson, also a friend, used a smart strategy to help drive traffic to Senator Collins' site by tapping in to a hot buzzword these days among conservative circles, "MoveOn.org."
However, “MoveOn.org†and likely "MoveOn" are registered trademarks which are also registered with Google as being trademarks. Therefore it is a violation of Google's terms of service to allow any advertiser other than MoveOn.org to use the ads in the content of the AdWord.
In need of an official clarification, I contacted Google's Adam Kovacevich for an explanation and he told me:
Google is committed to providing an advertising service with fair and consistent policies that benefit our users, advertisers, partners, and Google. To achieve this goal, we maintain high standards for ads accepted into the AdWords program. All AdWords ads, political or otherwise, must follow our editorial guidelines and content policy. Google applies policy for political ads equally, regardless of the political views represented by the ads submitted.
Under our advertising policies, companies and organizations that can demonstrate that they own trademark rights can request that their trademarked terms not be used in any ad text. In such cases, we will require that the advertiser remove the trademark from the ad text, although we do not disable keywords in response to a trademark complaint. MoveOn had made such a request. If ads are running on Google that do include trademark terms, this is likely because either the trademark owner has not submitted a complaint, or because the advertiser is authorized to use the trademark.
We encourage political candidates and campaigns with questions about these policies to contact our Elections Team at elections@google.com.
In other words, a company or organization which has a registered trademark, like Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Townhall.com, etc. can request from Google that no one except them can use its trademarked name in its advertising program.
Makes sense.
This "controversy" is a good time to note that if you work or represent a company or organization with a registered trademark, it might be in your best interest to submit a similar request through the proper channels to Google to ensure that someone's not using your intellectual property.
However, as I said before, this was a smart move by Dutson to help drive traffic to Senator Collins' website. Google has informed me that the policy above does not apply to the bidding of key words which trigger your ads but only to the content of the ads themselves.
Let's hope that a little creativity from Dutson will get some similar, effective ads up in the near future to ensure that conservatives in Maine are clicking the ads.
For example, would "Move On" violate their trademark? That's a question for the lawyers.
UPDATE 5:16 PM, Oct. 12: Google has just posted a blog post explaining its policy.
Comments
Makes sense?
So what Google's saying is, MoveOn can place an ad criticizing Susan Collins, but Susan Collins can't place an ad criticizing MoveOn?
No, that doesn't make sense. If someone was impersonating MoveOn, that might be one thing. But Google ads don't even identify the buyer, so it can't be the case here.
Maybe the details are for the lawyers, but this still defies common sense.
Yes, it makes sense...
If the basic premise is that any organization or company which can prove its registered trademark can prohibit use of that property in the content of an advertisement.
But, as you say, the details are for the lawyers and *not* the political operatives.
McCain-Feingold, revisited
Kind of. While the legal principles are different, it goes against the same moral principle in that both rules limit critical speech.
The new campaign finance laws largely amounted to incumbent-protection, with its temporary, pre-election advertising blackout. Google's TOS appears to be a permanent blackout on criticizing any proper nouns who've requested it. Both result in less speech.
I certainly understand that Google place whatever rules it likes on its own ad network, and I'm not criticizing their right to do it. I'm criticizing their decision to do it.
Not if it is political speech...
Regardless of the legal standing,
It is ridiculous for Moveon.org to restrict the use of its name in a political advertisement, and it is ridculous for Google to stand behind this policy as a shield, when it could easily clarify that the policy doesn't apply to registered political organizations. This is much different than a company trying to protect the integrity of its trademark. Moveon.org participates (and IMHO rightly) in the political debate using its resources to run advertising and support causes/candidates it wants to.
This is different than use the coke logo in a google add that says "Coke Sucks!" Failure to properly identify the organization in the ad means the ad has no meaning.
This is typical of the doublethink - only for free speech when they like it - Moveon.org is a joke!
Collins' ad: I could've told you
It's nice that a site has bothered to check the facts. I work for a PPC company and have been trying to get this point across all day. Google's done nothing wrong -- I've run into this policy all the time, and you CAN still use "moveon.org" as a keyword. Don't believe me? Google it -- you'll get an ad that says "Support Susan Collins" that has the same text as her old ad but without the offending phrase. Collins' could put her ad back up if she wanted, she just has to change the ad text.
 There is NO conspiracy here!Â
No sense because political speech is exempt
Fair use allows small infringements on otherwise copyrighted/ trademarked material. It is obviously the case that a political organization is fair game well beyond fair use concepts. Will Google likewise prohibit critical ads against the "DNC" or "Democrats" with a big "D"? Well, they might, since their obvious goal is to assist their side in the political arena. Google should be ashamed.
Google's Policy Does Not "make sense"
For the record, I have no idea why David All thinks that I am his "friend" or how exactly we are "colleagues" (esteemed or otherwise) since I do not know him, we do not work together or even work in the same field. Also, I did not "correctly note" that Google banned advertising from the campaign of Republican U.S. Senator Susan Collins (Maine). I broke the story for the Washington Examiner. It is a FACT that Google banned the ads and I reported that fact in my article.As for the rest, Mr. All writes:"Cox quotes a lawyer as stating that Google’s actions are “troubling†because it appears to be selective removal by Google to defend MoveOn.org. But let’s not jump to that assumption. Instead let's drill in to this a bit more to see if there’s another explanation for Google’s actions."First, my article cites examples (and there are MANY more) of trademarked names being used in Google ads without permission.Second, Google offered THREE DIFFERENT EXPLANATIONS as to why the ad was removed: (1) Google pro-actively enforced their policy that prohibits using a trademarked name or phrase without permission; (2) a trademark owner had filed a complaint alleging (2a) trademark infringement or (2b) trademark disparagement. These claims are contradictory. The last two are utterly bogus because there is no such requirement under trademark law. In other words, the reasons given for removing the Collins' ad has nothing to do with trademark law and nothing to do with pro-actively enforcing any Google policy.If none of the reasons offered by Google are true then it seems reasonable to ask "what's the REAL reason"?It is a matter of public record that MoveOn and Google have worked together in the past and that Google's PAC employs former MoveOn staffersTaken together it seems more than reasonable to view Google's actions as SUGGESTING that Google is selectively enforcing their policies to the detriment of Susan Collins' Senate campaign. It is certainly worth asking that question.Now Mr. All is welcome to believe that I am "jumping to conclusions" but I am certainly not "jumping to ASSUMPTIONS" because...well...that does not even make any sense. I've never even heard the phrase "jumping to assumptions" and have no idea what that means.Mr. All is also free to take Google's claims at face value. My article notes that Google is a private company and is free to discriminate against ANY advertiser for ANY reason. That does not make their policy a good one or MoveOn's claim under that policy noble. Their policy does NOT "make sense". The Google policy is a bad policy and one that is antithetical to the values Google professes to espouse. It also happens to run contrary to legal arguments the Google had made elsewhere such as allowing users to post video to YouTube or in the Net Neutrality debate.As for MoveOn, while they had a right under Google policy to file a complaint, they were not REQUIRED to do so to protect their trademark. They took advantage of a bad Google policy, likely intended to keep Google OUT OF trademark disputes, to suppress speech they did not like. They deserve to be called on that.Why Mr. All is so quick to give Google the benefit of the doubt escape me but any blogger who was kicked from Google News or put up a video in YouTube and had it removed knows that Google is NOT transparent and hardly deserving of any benefits of any doubts when it comes to action taken against bloggers who do not share it's political values.
Wow, really
Glad I made a lasting impression...
Here are a few pictures from your flickr account that you took of me at the 21st Century Right to Know project in New York this past July to refresh your memory:
http://flickr.com/photos/16002389@N00/1269371701/
http://flickr.com/photos/16002389@N00/1269372241/
But, good point. We're not facebook friends.
I don't think "esteemed" was over-stating the good work you've done in the field. But, whatever.
Not sure how...
...the coincidence that we were present at the same conference at one time makes us "friends". I have been to hundreds of conferences and do not describe all those present as my "friends" and have never heard that any of them have done likewise.As for the two photos you linked, I took pix at the conference because the organizers asked me to do so.. I took pix of EVERYONE in the room.. Since you were in the room you are in some of the pictures. That does not make us friends either. If that is confusing for you I will glady remove the pix.As for being "colleagues", as best I can tell you are a political consultant and former hill staffer. I have never worked on the hill, never worked on a political campaign and never worked as a political consultant. I've certainly never worked WITH YOU in any capacity. Except for being present at the conference you mention I had never seen you before in my life - and have never seen you since.I find this attempt to portray me as your "friend" and "colleague" rather odd.  I think you can comment on my piece without making false and misleading personal comments about me.
wow
I've amended the post.
The difference between you and I is that I assume friendship before enemy or otherwise. Especially with bloggers, journalists, political operatives, or people I would consider in the same field.
Keep plugging.
A well balanced analysis, and why we need IP Reform
I applaud your well balanced analysis. I would add only that, in my opinion, this is exactly why we need to scale back the effort to force ISPs, interactive service proivders, and others distributing third party content without any sort of editorial oversight. In such a system, free speech is always considered "collateral damage." Google should not feel forced to create a system where it must make such decisions -- especially where Moveon could have sued Collins directly had it so desired.
Has this ever been done to protect any other trademarks? No!
Google censored itself in China in order to make MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Al Gore sits on the board of directors and bought Google stock and made MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Google is a DNC multimillion dollar mouthpiece and they censored Senator Collins' advertisement.
Everyone, Democrat, Independent, and Republican, has the right to free speech in America. But this is "free speech" DNC style: free for anyone who agrees with them, AND NO ONE ELSE. Pure, textbook Soviet Stalinism, Chinese Maoism, Cambodian Pol Potism.
"Trademark protection?" Nonsense. Censorship? ABSOLUTELY!
Don't be daft
Yes, the First amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to free speech. You are free to expound on any message that strikes your fancy. You are not free to spray paint your message on my house.
You can complain that Google's political ideology may cause them to selectively enforce their stated policy. Any complaints that it is censorship because they won't publish messages that you like are specious. Censorship implies that force is being used to prohibit some entity from distributing their message. Just because Google doesn't allow someone to spray paint a particular message on their house doesn't make it censorship.
Comments
Just a heads up to some of the folks who were wondering why their comments weren't showing up earlier. They had been marked as spam by our not-always-perfect filters (including one of my own).
You can always email me at david.all AT techrepublican.com if that happens again.
We allow any and all comments including anonymous.
Let's see if I've got this
Let's see if I've got this right: I'm the NRA, so can we have Google remove any ads that contain "NRA" in the ad if we think it is negative? How about "Republican Party", "Republican National Committee", "NRC", or any other trade-marked word appearing in any ad that we don't like? Hey, maybe this is allll-right! (Like Google is actually gonna censor anything is going to negatively impact the liberal establishment.) I say that conservatives have the balls to call their bluff and beat them at their own game for a change.
"RNC", not "NRC". Sorry -
"RNC", not "NRC". Sorry - typo.
Get over yourself.....
I know I'm a little late to the party but I think Mr. Cox needs to get over himself.
David.....I stepped on the same landmine when I was just starting out in politics where I refered to the girl that was running the Leadership Institute's Job Bank as a friend and it got back to her. We were both College Republicans together at the same school but she denied it and I got egg on my face.
I think the old school "friend" label is where anyone over the age of 40 reserves that title for a handful of people and acquanience is prefered. As far as Mr. Cox's elitist attitude as far as you being a blogger/reporter of tech things and him reporting on a tech item, thereby making you collegues is only understandable as far as MSM journalist don't see bloggers as anything but annoying fly's to be swatted at. We can never measure up because we don't have a degree from Columbia. Not that he does mind you but the waffling smell of elitism still is presence in the air.
You handled it with grace which is more than I can say for him. Could he not find your personal e-mail on the site and send you a private message?      Â
Post new comment