Google

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.

The hypocrisy and situational ethics of "Google's Poodles", SaveTheInternet and FreePress is obvious for everyone to see.

SaveTheInternet on the top of its homepage has a call to "Take Action: Protect Free Speech Everywhere"! 

• "Stop the gatekeepers" "It's time Congress demanded free speech over all 21st century communications – on the Internet, on cell phones, on the streets, everywhere."
  • What part of "everywhere" does not include the most dominant gatekeeper on the Internet, Google, and does not include the free speech of a sitting U.S. Senator Susan Collins who is trying to respond to being targeted for election defeat by a political organization -- Moveon.org?
    • Are we to interpret that SaveTheInternet only believes free speech is warranted for people who agree with SaveTheInternet's chief patron -- Moveon.org? That's not very "neutral."
    • Or are we to interpret that because SaveTheInternet believes that Google's "don't be evil" "heart" is in the right place, they can do no wrong?
    • Like Google, do you not do what you say?

FreePress, runs the same "Stop the gatekeepers!" call at the top of their page in a rolling ad.

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."

Google just can't seem to get on the right side of copyright law -- or the law in general for that matter.

• Google's MySpace partner, News Corp clearly doesn't believe Google is doing enough to protect copyrights. 
• Peter Chernin, President of News Corp., in an interview with the Financial Times yesterday, chided Google that ""they could do a better job" at preventing illegally copied video from appearing on its YouTube site."
  • FT asks: "Do they have the technology to do it?"
  • Chernin: "It's pretty safe to say that they have the technology available, that if we [MySpace] have the technology available, a) it's publicly available, and b) I haven't yet heard a lot about Google being technologically constrained."

The point here is that Google clearly has the wherewithal to not violate copyright, but they are making a business decision that it is better or more profitable for Google to disrespect copyright law rather than to respect copyright law.

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.