While I agree that Google's behavior is blatantly partisan, that doesn't excuse the continued misunderstanding of the First Amendment repeated in this Examiner editorial:

On its face, a policy that allows censorship of political speech critical of the trademark holder is a violation of the First Amendment. If Google maintains this policy, it will be handing a powerful tool for crushing dissent not only to political groups like MoveOn.org but to every corporation with a trademarked name.

Sorry, no. As I wrote not long ago:

Ahmadinejad had no First Amendment right to speak at Columbia, and he had no First Amendment right to not be criticized, either before, during or after his speech. And I have no First Amendment right to AT&T DSL service, or to not have it cut off if I express an opinion over its tubes. All that the First Amendment says is that "Congress shall make no law," not "Columbia University will grant a podium and audience," or "AT&T shall provide Internet service regardless of the behavior of the customer."

It also doesn't say that "Google shall not discriminate by political beliefs in which ads it chooses to run."

Not that Google shouldn't be criticized, and its hypocrisy pointed out on a daily basis, of course.

Guess we can see why they didn't go with the motto "Do No Stupid".

But hey, this is a great idea. Just trademark your political group's name and Google won't sell any ads critical of you. Oh, right, that only works if your group is on the Left.

And the last pararaph of that article takes conservatives to task for not being supporters of free speech in a thinly disguised attempt at balance (citing no examples of equivalent conservative offenses). Time to fall back on phony moral equivalence when your own side gets caught out, I guess.

When a newspaper editorial can't get the First Amendment right...

what's a "Consitution?" Sounds painful.

The matter may be more complicated than a simple First Amendment argument. A few weeks ago, the New York Times was criticized for giving MoveOn a discount rate (against their own internal policies) on the BetrayUs ad. On the one hand, it would seem that the New York Times is free to charge whatever rate it wants for ads. However, I seem to recall that there are law requiring newspapers to treat political advertising equally. While the paper's editorial page is free to be as biased as it wants, political advertising was supposedly something different. If that's true (and I may be recalling the matter incorrectly), then wouldn't those same laws apply to Google's policies on advertising? Would the party whose ads were cut by Google (after paying for them, of course) have the grounds for a legal complaint if they can show that Google allowed ads by groups like MoveOn that were handled differently? I'm no lawyer (I prefer honest work) but it seems there might be grounds for a lawsuit at the least.

I may in fact be true that Google broke some arcane campaign finance law, but that has nothing to do with the First Amendment. In fact, it makes my point, because most such laws are (or should be) unconstitutional under the First Amendment (in my humble opinion, if not in the opinion of certain confused souls on the high bench).

Rand,
I just love it when some space science/engineering guy sticks it to the so-called Constitutional "experts".
Hope you caught the youtube video of Ted Nugent expounding on the 2nd Amendment.
Rock star joins engineering star to confound lefties.
Gotta love it.
BTW, why/how could commenters conflate anti-Constitutional McCain-Feingold with First Amendment?
MikeD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QjEL0uUgo

Campaign finance and the First Amendment:

I understand that this refers to freedom of speech and the press, right? (I don't know the American Constitution all that well - I'm British).

Two points here, which are linked. First - freedom of the press only makes any difference to those who either own a press or can afford to pay for its use. Second: campaign finance laws (we have them in UK, too) exist for one reason and one reason only; to ensure that the voice of money doesn't swamp all other voices.

If campaign finance laws didn't exist, then American (and British) politicians would be bought and paid for even more than they already are. I'm afraid that if there is a word for political systems run by megacorporations, I don't know it; but that is what both countries would be without those laws.

There is a similar position with regard to the Second Amendment. I know of very few Americans that believe in no weapon control whatsoever; the argument is about where the line is drawn. If you don't agree with that statement, then consider - there are plenty of Americans with the resources to buy and operate artillery, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and anti-aircraft missiles; does anyone reading this think that private individuals should be allowed to have them?

Similarly, freedom of speech implies that it should be possible to be heard.

"there are plenty of Americans with the resources to buy and operate artillery, heavy machine guns, rocket launchers and anti-aircraft missiles; does anyone reading this think that private individuals should be allowed to have them?"

I have seen people who legally own grenade launchers and heavy machine guns. Google Knob Creek Machine gun shoot. The law allows them to do just that.

Now, if you can come up with just one instance of a legally owned weapon you listed being used in an actual crime, I would like to hear it.

there are plenty of Americans with the resources to buy and operate artillery

yep, and I've seen Americans with them and have seen them used. What's your problem with them?

Really, reading through the list, the only thing I haven't seen a private American entity own and use is anti-aircraft missiles. Like Mike suggests, I don't recall a crime spree with such weapons in recent history.

Two points here, which are linked. First - freedom of the press only makes any difference to those who either own a press or can afford to pay for its use. Second: campaign finance laws (we have them in UK, too) exist for one reason and one reason only; to ensure that the voice of money doesn't swamp all other voices.

Given that a computer and internet connection can now be a "press" (eg, bloggers in particular), this means a lot more people have access to that protection. The freedom of the press is a small part of the First Amendment. It also gives religious freedom (the government can neither establish a state religion nor hinder the practice of religion), the right to assemble "peaceably", and the right to petition the government for "redress of grievances".

I was not aware that private individuals in the USA were entitled to heavy infantry weapons and artillery. If true, it makes America even more insane than I thought it was.

What in the name of hell does any private individual need artillery for? (I can imagine some possibilities, such as making movies, but...)

Thanks for the input about the First Amendment. However, not everyone has either a computer or the skill to use it - or the money to buy one. But I forgot - if you have no money in the good ol' USA, you're less than nothing, so who cares?

"I was not aware that private individuals in the USA were entitled to heavy infantry weapons and artillery. If true, it makes America even more insane than I thought it was."

Let's see, you have an irration fear of a technology in private hands that can be deomnstrated to have been so non-abused at as to render your chances of death by meteorite to be greater and you are still an arrogant ass enough to call us insane......

I would consider someone with a demonstrably irrational fear to be insane myself. I wonder who in this thread that describes??

It's amazing how irrational people can be about firearms. It's a wonder they don't go into cardiac arrest whenever a cop walks by with holstered pistol. Allow a civilian to have one too, and the nut cases start bouncing off the walls.

On a pure tangent, it amazes me how many people worry about gun ownership, yet seem unconcerned by the number of unlicensed people driving cars at highway speeds. One might get the false impression that guns kill more people in the US than cars.

> Second: campaign finance laws (we have them in UK, too) exist for one reason and one reason only; to ensure that the voice of money doesn't swamp all other voices.

Campaign finance laws exist to impede the "wrong" people from influencing campaigns and to reduce the number of incumbents or their "descendants" that are elected.

Never confuse the arguments with the reasons. The effects reveal the reasons.

One might get the false impression that guns kill more people in the US than cars.

Guns don't kill people, and neither do cars. People kill each other using tools, sometimes unwittingly. Its a tired phrase, but it always bears repeating. If the bad guys have guns, why can't the average citizen have one? Personally, I don't like guns and will never have one in my house, but that doesn't mean others can't own one. I can't qualify what our life would be like with complete gun control, or without any control, but I can qualify that those citizens that go through the process to legally carry are probably more trustworthy to do so than those who have weapons illegally.