Internet Filtering

First there was this:
FCC Issues Open Invitation to Internet Filtering:

Buried in the [FCC's decision slamming Comcast for interfering with bittorrent traffic]… lurks an open invitation to internet service providers to filter content. In essence, the commission said carriers cannot discriminate against file sharing protocols, but they may act as a traffic cops and block illegal material and “transmissions that violate copyright law.”

Followed by this:
New Lobbying Group Calls for Internet Filtering:

Behind the lobby are AT&T, Cisco Systems, Microsoft, NBC Universal, Viacom and the Songwriters Guild of America. Among other things, the lobby, called Arts+Labs, says “network operators must have the flexibility to manage and expand their networks to defend against net pollution and illegal file-trafficking which threatens to congest and delay the network for all consumers.”

This is potentially huge (e.g. tech is incapable of dealing w/ fair use)… or perhaps this will be the straw that leads to everyone going encrypted.

Does Google’s Ad Policy Help Companies / Organizations Suppress Criticism?

Background:

1. Google has a policy that trademark owners can register their legit trademarks with Google if they don’t want those trademarks to be used in the text of Google ads placed by others. (Within USA/Canada, this policy covers ad text only, not keywords.)

2. Someone recently tried to place a Google AdWords ad that criticized MoveOn for its 9/10 controversial nytimes ad. “MoveOn” and “MoveOn.org” are trademarks. MoveOn had previously followed Google’s aforementioned policy to request that others not be able to use those trademarks in the text of Google ads. As a result, Google rejected the ad.
3. IANAL, but as far as I can tell there is no legal reason why Google has to have the type of policy they do. There is a nominative use exception to TM law that would seem to apply to the attempted use of the term “MoveOn” in this case. In other words, people / companies / organizations are allowed to use others’ trademarks descriptively, including for the sake of criticism / comparison that is not misleading. (The nominative use link has specifics on the New Kids precedent.)

So, assuming that Google follows its policy consistently, the legitimate criticism isn’t that they are censoring a conservative political ad. The criticism is that Google’s trademark policy gives companies and organizations another way to limit criticism. Considering Google’s leading position in online advertising, their advertising policies have political consequences. So while I personally much prefer MoveOn’s politics to those of the guy who tried to place this ad, this is a much bigger issue. The same policy would allow Nike, for example, to prevent others from directly criticizing Nike in the text of their ads. Maybe this is an acceptable policy, but it should be recognized that it’s different from the way advertising has worked in other mediums.