Court says search engines have First Amendment right to reject ads
At first glance, I thought "isn't this obvious?" One of the commentors reminds us of NBCs refusal to show an ad for the Dixie Chicks movie. At that point it is clear that publishers have power to refuse to publish material up to a point. Then the whole censorhsip thing kicks in.
In the case of broadcast television, NBC should act like the common carrier it was set up to be -- leasing the public's property, the airwaves. I think there is legal ambiguity and ambiguity in how people conceive of the Internet these days. Is is a common carrier and part of the commons? Or does it "belong" to commercial interests who use it to make money? I think it is like a highway, not a tollway.
Tags: commoncarrier | sites | says | request | reject | filed | ENGINES | court | commons | ads | Yahoo | Politics | langdon | Google | Delaware | Carolina | Amendment
1 comment:
I am in agreement with search engines having the right to reject ads. Goodle, Dogpile, Yahoo, etc. should have a right to advertise whoever and whatever THEY choose to. They know which ads are profitable. Ads are some kind of representation of the company that accepts them.
Post a Comment