Selective free speech


Apparently it is okay for the Left but not the Right

Right now I am munching a sandwich and looking at links to write about. This one REALLY jumped out.

Internet giant Google has banned advertisements critical of MoveOn.org, the far-left advocacy group that caused a national uproar last month when it received preferential treatment from The New York Times for its “General Betray Us” message.

The ads banned by Google were placed by a firm working for Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ re-election campaign. Collins is seeking her third term.

Earlier this week, Google told Lance Dutson, president of Maine Coast Designs, that the ads he placed for Collins had been removed and would not be allowed to resume because they violated Google’s trademark policy.

Google’s Web site states, “Google takes allegations of trademark infringement very seriously and, as a courtesy, we’re happy to investigate matters raised by trademark owners.” That suggests Google acted in response to a complaint by MoveOn.org.

And now thanks to OpinionJournal.com, I find out that this isn't the first time that MoveOn.org tried to use the trademark laws to quell criticism.

MoveOn.org's excessively discounted broadside against General David Petraeus in the New York Times two weeks ago won't rank as its most successful tactic. The full-page nastygram appears not only to have solidified Republican opposition in the Senate for proposals to curtail the Iraq war effort, but also to have shaken the group's rich Hollywood funding base.

So it's not too surprising that the liberal advocacy group would be a mite touchy from all the blowback online, even though it should be used to the abuse by now. So touchy, in fact, that it's been sending out cease-and-desist letters to CafePress, a website that lets people offer custom-designed t-shirts, coffee mugs and the like for sale. Last week it demanded that the site remove eight items, arguing that they violated MoveOn's merchandising trademarks.

Trademark law doesn't confer monopoly rights over all uses of a registered phrase or symbol, however, and it wasn't created simply to protect the trademark owner's interests. Instead, it's designed to protect consumers against being misled or confused about brands. The courts have repeatedly ruled in favor of parodies and critiques; that's why www.famousbrandnamesucks.com doesn't violate famousbrandname's trademark. And most, if not all, of the items targeted by MoveOn were clearly designed to razz it, not to trick buyers into thinking they were the group's products.

Granted, the extreme right and extreme left in the United States are growing more and more like each other. But the one thing I can count on the rabid folks on the left to do time and time again is to suppress dissent under the excuse of freedom and law. That hasn't changed since long before my first Liberty entry on this blog.

I suppose I should be thankful that there are still clear cut differences. But gods, I wish they were different in more ways. It doesn't say much for an argument if someone uses the law to shield it from judgement.

Disclaimer: Google provides search services and advertising for this site, although that has yet to generate any revenue for me.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Fri - October 12, 2007 at 02:04 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library



Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved