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.