Australian Sex Party May Sue Google Over Ad Refusal 183
New submitter niftydude writes "Australian newspaper The Age is carrying the story: The Australian Sex Party has threatened Google with legal action after the search engine refused to run its ads on the eve of tomorrow's Melbourne by-election. It comes after Sex Party ads were blocked by Google at the last federal election because the company — which is typically opposed to censorship — perceived the text as too racy (the ads were reinstated by Google the day before the election). Sex Party candidate Fiona Patten said this time the search giant said it would not approve her ads 'because we have a donate button on our page and we're not a charity.' Don't all political parties allow donations? Is google imposing its own sense of morality onto Australian politics?"
shot down Google! (Score:1)
Google has now interfered in the elections of a sovereign nation. Google must be destroyed.
Grammar Standards Imposition (Score:1, Flamebait)
Sex Party Candidate: "Is google imposing it's own sense of morality onto Australian politics?"
No, but if you keep confusing "it's" with "its" you may find people imposing common standards of grammar on you. That can't be good for your credibility. As if being a self-proclaimed mouthpiece for a sex party wasn't bad enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe Australia needs a pedantic grammar douche party.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how Americans always find the use of correct grammar to be a chore.
Do they not realize what the point of grammar and orthography is? It makes it easier to understand the sense of what they're saying, which in turn enables easier communication between people.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Do they not realize what the point of grammar and orthography is?
We were educated by the government. What do you expect? Good outcomes from a government program???
Re: (Score:2)
real man no respect grammar. real man make OWN grammar. then watch puny weakling adhere to reformed language and literary orthography. NAAAARG!
Re: (Score:2)
You are also about 1000 times angrier than everyone else. Chill a bit, it isn't Blow an Aneurism Week.
Re:Grammar Standards Imposition (Score:5, Informative)
It's not "a sex party", it's "The Sex Party"...that is, it's a political party with policies centred on sexual and gender issues [sexparty.org.au], and has nothing to do with putting your car keys in a bowl.
I should explain that Australian political parties usually have deceptive names. For example, the Liberal Party are the conservatives, the Labor Party usually puts everyone out of work, One Nation divided the country before forking itself, and the National Party doesn't field candidates in most electorates. The Greens are pretty much what you'd expect, though until recently their leader was a chap by the name of Brown, so while technically they tried to fit in it was a predictably feeble effort. On the New South Wales state level we also have the Christian Democrats, whose values are hardly those of Christ and is run by a religious oligarch, and the Shooters and Fishers Party, which is a reasonably accurate description but they put the "jerk" into "knee-jerk".
And if you exercise your comprehension skills you'd find the grammatical mistake was on the part of the submitter, not the candidate.
Not surprising (Score:2)
I believe a relevant policy page is here [google.com], basically unless you're a charity you can't use the donate button or they can freeze your account. The buy now button is available for others but is only supposed to be used for physical goods apparently, not sure whether intangibles like subscriptions or software qualify. I know some places just use the buy now button and sell crummy little tokens or somesuch and people basically make donations that way. Still, political parties should definitely be eligible for th
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA, they're tax exempt, just like the other political parties who are using a donate button.
Is this incompetence on google's part, or is it malice? Google are notoriously incompetent, I have proof of this as another one of their head-hunters approached me the other day, apparently unaware of the fact that I repeatedly say that they both are evil and suck. They'd better hope they're incompetent, as if it's malice I reckon (http://www.y
Re: (Score:2)
I'd go with incompetence. "Sex" is a very obvious keyword to use to automatically ban ads for something based on a keyword search. Follow up with bureaucracy lying about the reason they banned the ads because they want to pretend they banned the ads for cause instead of because nobody read them. I wouldn't be surprised if they also have internal policies about sexual ads and that even though those ads are not actually sexual, nobody at Google will unban the ads because overbanning won't get you fired but
My own band can't advertise on Google (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't advertise my own band on Google. They refuse my ads again and again. Free music. It's MY music. My band wrote and recorded it. They will not let me advertise it as free.
The ads take days to get denied. Then I change it and it's days again to get denied. Eventually I just gave up.
On the other hand, the ads for free web games I make get approved in hours.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, the ads for free web games I make get approved in hours.
Put your music in your web games. Problem solved.
Re: (Score:1)
Already on it. :) My web games are in HTML5, and it sucks how bad the audio in HTML sucks. Actually, it sucks how bad HTML5 sucks. My next game will be in flash. I know how much of a dead end flash is, but that says something about how much HTML5 sucks, doesn't it?
Could I write "sucks" a few more times? What does that even mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Could I write "sucks" a few more times? What does that even mean?
My question exactly. What exactly sucks about HTML5? You message would be a lot stronger with specifics than just repeating "sucks" 1000 times.
Re: (Score:2)
Your code should be ready for different client configurations anyways, so there is no way you'll get consistent framerate anyways. What OS and what browser were giving you this behavior?
Re: (Score:2)
See, because you didn't plug your band (and I can't find any reference to it on your linked website) now I'm genuinely curious. I'm all for free music, and despite the occasional itunes purchase the vast majority of my (admittedly small) library is free.
Drop us a link, would you please?
Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (Score:4, Interesting)
http://theexperiments.com/ [theexperiments.com] rock / punk it's al CC licensed, free downloads. Thanks for your interest.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I totally agree. But it is frustrating. They don't give any reason, just a "denied"
Re:My own band can't advertise on Google (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, they have pretty close to a monopoly on web advertising. If this continues, I hope the govt breaks down Google or pushes for regulations that govern web advertising.
Re: (Score:2)
Redundant? Seriously? Looks like someone did not like my comment
They have every right (Score:4, Insightful)
They have every right to ...
Have you ever stopped to consider what that means, and how ridiculous it is if taken literally.
It implies that google has no legal obligations to government, shareholders, or customers. Its not true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Since we allow private companies to grow without limit, this is not necessarily true. "With great power comes great responsibility", and frankly, it's about time we stop pretending that the word "private" excuses you from it.
Disappointed - absolutely nothing racy about ads (Score:1)
They were (gasp) text ads - nothing lurid, no links to pictures of hot heavy action.
Perhaps they didn't live up to the moderators' standards of a nice good racy ad?
Shame on Google IF... (Score:2)
They are running ads for other parties who are soliciting donations from their site. I haven't seen ads either way, nor did the linked article directly state that they were hosting ads for other parties that were soliciting ads. If this is in fact the case, I'd be truly disappointed. Before I jump to that conclusion, I'd like to see the ads that are being posted for the other parties rather than jump to a conclusion based on a potentially biased source.
After all, this is the internet we're talking about,
Re: (Score:2)
After all, this is the internet we're talking about, right? If the ads exists and the other parties are soliciting donations from their sites, we should be able to see better proof than just texts that alludes to something.
This is Slashdot - there's a policy against direct links to informative material. If you must provide a link, it has to be either to a previous Slashdot story or else to an advertisement-heavy set of 10-15 linked pages, each of which contains at most two sentences of information.
Sex Party (Score:2)
Google is just giving the masses what they want. When someone googles for sex party, they want to see a party with a whole load of sex going on, not a political advert.
Shame I am 4km out of Melbourne (Score:2)
On the basis of this advertisment I would have given them my second preference at least.
Using google to find information (Score:2)
Using google to learn more about this political party is not without obstacle... some may even say it's hard. The search results often return an orgy of irrelevant sites.
Free ad (Score:2)
Why pay Google for an ad when you can get free publicity by deliberately submitting an ad that you know they won't run, then submitting a frivolous lawsuit.
Share the wealth, Google! (Score:2)
Maybe it's time that the government step in and force Google to play fair [slashdot.org]. You know, for the good of society, they should be made to share with everyone. That's what Google seems to want for other companies [slashdot.org], so what's good for them is good for Google, isn't it?
Important missing piece (Score:2)
Typically opposed to censorship? (Score:2)
Google banned all firearm related products from Google Shopping not two weeks ago. Some of you are indulging an idealized `do no evil' Google from 2001. Google censors whatever it's told to and whatever it doesn't like whenever it wants. There may be some vestige of reluctance to censor within Google, but it's not bothering anyone.
Re:porn party? (Score:5, Insightful)
A hypothetical child porn party would probably not be permitted to register and for election in Australia. Google could just refuse to run political ads from anyone other than a registered political party. But no, they pick and choose which parties they will or won't run ads for.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:porn party? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in the Netherlands there used(?) to be a "pedophile" party. Its goals among others were the lowering of the legal age of consent to 12 years. As long as the party itself acts within the boundaries of the law, they are free to promote any political opinion, even if these clash with the current law. This is very important for a healthy democracy.
Re:porn party? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Would it still be censorship to ban their adds?
The content in question doesn't matter. That has no effect on whether or not it's censorship. But I can't see how child porn is in any way related.
Re: (Score:1)
How about what's legal and what's not? Most places criminalize child porn, not so much sex.
Re: (Score:1)
Ok, assuming the report is correct: why are they saying it's because of the donate button if it's actually because they think something (Sex or maybe parties) is immoral?
Re:porn party? (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering there are ads on Google for pornographic websites, I find it very hard to believe that they refused it out of their own moral sense.
Re: (Score:2)
And if they were the child porn party? Would it still be censorship to ban their adds? Google have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they chose to do it.
Banning adds for something that is illegal is not exactly censorship.
Re:porn party? (Score:4, Funny)
It's "addds". Why do you people keep leaving off a D?
Re: (Score:2)
If it's censorship to ban the ads in the first place, then the content, whether illegal or not, does not matter. You might agree with the censorship, but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Re: (Score:1)
The issue here is whether or not Google should be going beyond what the law requires. Law typically requires child porn to be banned and for court orders to be upheld when issued and such, but beyond that it's up to Google to decide what to accept and what not to accept.
However, because Google has a dominant market position in advertising space if they make too much use of discretion, especially if it appears political, they could find themselves broken up.
Re:porn party? (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue here is whether or not Google should be going beyond what the law requires. Law typically requires child porn to be banned and for court orders to be upheld when issued and such, but beyond that it's up to Google to decide what to accept and what not to accept.
However, because Google has a dominant market position in advertising space if they make too much use of discretion, especially if it appears political, they could find themselves broken up.
Thank you, you make a very good point. If the law requires Google to ban it, then Google is not censoring it. Someone could make a case the government is censoring, but that is besides the point here.
However, in this particular case, there was no lawful requirement stopping those adds. It was Google's own decision. Then, we have a problem, and a big one at that.
Re:porn party? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:porn party? (Score:4, Informative)
It is censorship to ban adverts which don't breach the advertising legislations of the country in which they are being shown regardless of your moral standing.
Worse still I'm not sure on Australian law but some countries have specific rules about elections. Decisions like this may remove Google from the right to advertise for any political party during elections.
Also have you actually had a look at their policies? [sexparty.org.au] Despite what they call themselves this party stands for all the things a typical slashdot user holds dear including:
- Drug reform
- Anti-censorship
- Net Neutrality
- Anti government snooping
- Internet education
- Equal rights laws including same sex marriage
- Separation of religion from government
They are like the Pirate Party except they've been around longer.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Google is being overzealous-by-default.
Consider that the default filters ban anything related with sex to show on advertisements delivered to the mass, and consider that it takes much more time to deal with the bureaucracy at Google (all the different levels of message forwarding to the higher authority etc) than it takes time for a script to ban 'X' ad that has 'Y' keywords in it.
Most people, most of the time, don't want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it them
Re: (Score:3)
Most people, most of the time, don't want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it themselves.
Nicely put. Certainly those who, most of the time, _do_ want to be made to think about sex when they're not actively thinking about it themselves, don't need google to remind them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How does this differ from anything else? Most of the time I DON'T want to be forced to think about cleaning products or shopping for a new car or whatever either.
So basically (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pirates are in it for the sex?
Yarrrrrrrrrr !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but decriminalization has plenty of advantages and it's an easier policy to "sell".
Re: (Score:2)
Decriminalization maintains the black market. There's little to be gained from that. It's just more people giving more money to organized crime. There's no sense whatsoever in treating cannabis any different than beer.
Re: (Score:2)
Our experience here in Portugal shows that there is much to be gained from decriminalization, even if it's far from the optimal solution. The data shows there is less social stigma, more people getting treatment, less AIDS/HIV infections and reduced drug usage amongst young people.
I'm not saying that we should be satisfied with decriminalization, but it's still a step in the right direction.
Re:porn party? (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they were the child porn party? Would it still be censorship to ban their adds? Google have to draw a line somewhere and this is where they chose to do it.
You must be from the USA. You rationalize something related to sex by throwing in an extreme, illegal practice. No doubts left.
Buddy, sex isn't something to get all worked up about. It may come as a shock but both you and I are most likely products of normal sexual behavior.
I'll recap:
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
It's a very abject thing because it violates children's development on many levels.
That would be the rape. We do indeed need to stop the rapists.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
(it's an industry lobby)
Then pay attention to their actual arguments and policies and debate them on that.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it religion based?
Atheists tend to think sex with five year olds is just as disgusting and harmful to the child as everyone else does.
Re: (Score:2)
Any sentence containing "disgusting" cannot be considered a fact, it is is necessarily a subjective opinion.
If you feel disgust, this is merely conditioning.
Re: (Score:2)
Two 17-year olds taking pictures of themselves having sex would be considered "child porn", even if the actual sex act was legal.
Re: (Score:2)
That is more an issue with having a line in the sand definition of "child".
If you were to talk about 4 and 5 year olds, who we can all universally agree are children, your example would have a very different impact.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying those who oppose this think no line should be drawn anywhere?
Get a grip dude.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't doubt the OP's dude only ever gets gripped. By himself. Hence the hysterical nonsense response.
Time to get out of his mums cellar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:There is no problem (Score:5, Informative)
That's not necessarily the case. In some jurisdictions, it is required to give equal access to all political parties. If you will run ads for one candidate in a race, you must give make ad space available to all the other candidates in the race in similarly prominent positions for the same cost.
dom
Re:There is no problem (Score:4, Informative)
As it is here. Refusal to run one parties ads on non equal terms leads to a bollocking. Fairfax, NEWS et al get around it in the form of editorial support/panning but the ads must be the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
After a really quick Google search, I couldn't find the ad, but I remember when Clint Eastwood was running for office, the networks wouldn't show his movies because they were scared the other candidates would ask for equal time, and since Eastwood didn't pay to have the movies run, they'd have to do it for free.
Imagine TNT having to let each candidate pontificate for two hours. I can't even stand the thirty second ads.
Re: (Score:3)
In that case, let's hope no one from the Lemon Party runs for office.
Re: (Score:2)
Google is a company, not a government entity. They can refuse to do business with anyone they want. Nobody has any kind of right to use their services.
No blacks no Irish no Gays
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:There is no problem (Score:5, Interesting)
No shoes, no shirt...
I have always wondered what would happen if you walked into an establishment with a sign saying that with a shirt, shoes, and no pants. They never said anything about pants.
Re:There is no problem (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because a bunch of people who think they know what's better for you than you do decided it. Kinda like how most laws get passed.
Re:There is no problem (Score:4)
That is complete nonsense. It is illegal for a company to refuse business for all but a few very good reasons, due to decades of civil rights legislation to stop discriminatory business practice. And more specifically, it is illegal for a broadcaster to refuse a political advertisement.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11938320 [bbc.co.uk]
It's possible that what payment processors did to Wikileaks is illegal in some countries, but this is ultimately unimportant. They did it anyway and the result has been the same.
Re:There is no problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is no problem (Score:4, Informative)
They can refuse to do business with anyone they want.
That's not how it works here, there are rules about equal access to media services for political candidates in an attempt to ensure that one rich party cannot hog all the eyeballs, besides the paid for adverts from registered political parties always come with an "authorised by", so you know who to blame should you be offended.
Re:There is no problem (Score:5, Insightful)
You are approaching it from a legal standpoint.
But sometimes things that are legal can still be problematic. This here is part of such a problem.
With the big U.S. internet companies providing world wide services, they tend to impose american moral standards on everyone of their customers.
Companies like Facebook have rules concerning profanity and 'adult' content, that abide american standards, Google filters what an American would consider morally wrong and so on. Even in countries that don't care much, when someone shows a boob on TV, these same rules are applied.
Why is this a problem?
Because it is shaping public opinion. A former more liberal community will get used to these puritanian concepts when exposed to them all the time and it will change that community.
If you have a hard time understanding this problem, because you are from the U.S. yourself, imagine if all the big internet companies were from Iran instead. Imagine how that would start shaping your daily life, if you had to abide to Iranian moral standards when doing pretty much anything online.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not hard to argue the other way around: Australia is trying to impose Australian moral standards on an American company.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.ibisworld.com.au/enterprisefull/default.aspx?entid=11646 [ibisworld.com.au]
If the Australian courts did impose judgements
Re: (Score:2)
So if I buy stock in Honda of Japan, they don't have to follow Japanese law because they are partially owned by an american? Sorry, Google Austrailia is an Australian company without regard to how much or how little of it is owned by foriegners.
Re: (Score:2)
After looking at the sex party site, and their platform, it's not like they are that far out there; decriminalizing drug and sex workers probably wouldn't work in Utah, but Nevada is half-way there. As far as boobs on TV, mens boobs are OK and anyone with a penise is a man, and many transgendered are still technicaly men and and many have some pretty spectacular boobs which would be technicaly legal on network television.
Re: (Score:2)
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, they can refuse to do business with any specific person/entity based on uniformly applied policies, what they can not do is refuse to do business with a group of people defined by race, social standing, religion, sexual orientation etc.
I suppose the Australian Sex Party could make a case that they're being discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. They also have a policy [wikipedia.org] that religion should be kept out of politics, which might preclude discrimination against them on religious grounds.
Re:There is no problem (Score:5, Informative)
Care to point to the Google policy which you claim is being breached by The Sex Party [sexparty.org.au]? Some [alp.org.au] other [liberal.org.au] parties [nationals.org.au] in Australia also have donate buttons on their websites, and there is no sign of Google refusing their election ads.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe Google secretly really likes the Sex Party and is intentionally Streisand Effecting them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
or they can find another party with "Donate" button AND Google ads
The GOP has Google ads [clickz.com] and a Donate page. [gop.com] I suppose you may reply and be pedantic and say that the button text is "Contribute" rather than donate, but the text "Complete the form below to make a donation." makes it pretty clear that the action is considered a "donation".
The British Conservative Party uses Google ads [guardian.co.uk] and they have a Donate page. [conservatives.com] The text "Why Donate?" "Make a donation" makes it obvious that this is considered a donation.
And that was just the first two that I checked, I'm sure you can fin
Re: (Score:2)
The question was a serious question. While I agree that a company should not be permitted to refuse to do business with a group of people defined by race, social standing, religion, sexual orientation etc, the AC said that companies may still refuse to do business on a uniformly applied policy. And I fail to see how refusing to do business based on any one of those criteria cannot be made to fit into a "uniformly applied policy".
Re: (Score:2)
Last time I didn't get any cake.
Re:Do evil (Score:4, Funny)
I think that they have to be gay before Google will support them.