Congress

Moveon.org and Google appear to be to back-pedaling from their conspiracy of last week to block the political free speech of a U.S. Senator up for reelection. 

Art Brodsky's of Public Knowledge recently posted his long defense of Moveon.org and Google for their blocking the free speech of U.S. Senator Susan Collins.

• Brodsky claims that Moveon.org has called off its trademark protection dogs and is now allowing Google to place anti-Moveon.org ads now that they blocked last week at Moveon.org's urging.
  • How skulkingly magnanimous of them!

What appears to be missing from this sleight-of-hand mea culpa, is Google/Moveon.org or both of them:

• admitting they made an egregious mistake in conspiring to block the free speech of a U.S. Senate candidate;
• taking full responsibility for the Internet free speech censorship;
• pledging it won't happen again; and
• explaining that they have taken sufficient actions (policy changes) so it won't reoccur.

I doubt a congressional panel, the press or the blogosphere will drop this issue just because one of Google's Poodles organizations, Public Knowledge, posted a preemptive defense on the Huffington Post to try and frame this issue before their "progressive" base got a whif of their week-old anti-free speech droppings.

Mr. Brodsky also claims that Google and Moveon.org have never limited free speech before.

While I doubt I'll ever be accused of being a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton, I must commend her and her campaign for sound political judgement when it's due.

How timely for the Google-backed Open Internet Coalition to be writing Congress asking for Congressional hearings on allegations of censorship of free speech on the Internet.

Robert Cox, the Founder and President of the Media Bloggers Association, a non-partisan professional standards group, reports that Google has blocked the running of U.S. Senator Susan Collins' anti-Moveon.org ads on Google.

•  "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."

  Google has a particularly tortured concept of "free speech" if it is willing to editorially ban Republican speech that opposes its most important and high-profile lobbying ally in the net neutrality fight.

  • It is painfully ironic that Google CEO Eric Schmidt just gave a major policy speech in August on Google's main public policy priorities and stated that:

    • "We need to defend freedom of speech as more speech comes on line."

    • By banning opposing political views, is Google defending free speech or practicing "Internet censorship" as the "Ultimate Internet Gatekeeper?

Listening to Google's General Counsel testify at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing on the Google-DoubleClick merger  which I also testified at, one would think everyone loves Google and all was just "teddie bears and rainbows" for consumers in Googleland.

Reed Hundt's Frontline Wireless,  is reportedly forming a high-profile "Open Access Advisory Council" for the 700 MHz spectrum auction, which includes "net neutrality" term-coiner and celebrity Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu.

I have two pieces of unsolicited advice for Frontline's new advisory council."

Google's long rumored Google phone
or GPhone project has attracted a lot of comment and chatter, but not a lot of
good analysis to date. One big exception is a very good article last week by
Miguel Helft of the New York Times: "For
Google, Advertising and phones go together."

Kudos to Professor Joseph Turow on his spot on editorial "Don't give Google double the power" about the very troubling implications of the Google-DoubleClick merger.

• Don't miss reading it.   

Someone needs to call the SaveTheInternet/FreePress/net neutrality crowd on their outrageous hypocrisy in politically claiming that being for "net neutrality" is being for more "free speech" protections.

When the SaveTheInternet organization and their net neutrality allies were offered very specific legislative language that would explicitly protect "free speech'' on the Internet -- they actively blocked it from passage in the Senate Commerce Committee in August of 2006 and from it passing into law last Congress. 

The legislative text below was in the HR5252 Amendment proposed by then Chairman Stevens in the telecom reform bill in June of 2006.

• SaveTheInternet and the net neutrality movement opposed that protection of free speech language (Sec. 904. Application of the First Amendment) because what they really wanted was to make broadband subject to common carrier regulation.

 "SEC. 904. APPLICATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.