Utah Trying To Restrict Keyword Advertising ... Again 257
Eric Goldman writes "The Utah legislature has tried to restrict keyword advertising twice before, with disastrous results. In 2004, Utah tried to ban keyword advertising in adware; that law was declared unconstitutional. In 2007, Utah tried to regulate competitive keyword advertising; after a firestorm of protests, Utah repealed the law in 2008. Despite this track record, Utah is trying to regulate keyword advertising a third time. HB 450 would allow trademark owners to block competitors from displaying certain types of keyword ads. In practice, this law is just another attempt by the Utah legislature to enact a law that doesn't help consumers at all but does help trademark owners suppress their online competition."
remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
Please remove the "Mormons" tag. Not all Mormons think that way. San Francisco has liberal Mormons, Texas has conservative Mormons, and there are libertarians dispersed throughout.
So, Google will have a disclaimer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
The smell of lobbyists (Score:1, Insightful)
We have a lobbyist problem at the local level not unlike at the national level. The amount of gifts that get handed out is stunning and much of it goes unreported. My thoughts are that this happenned in Utah is because whoever is pushing this knows that they have a better chance of getting away with it here than someplace like California.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
It would have dropped off on its own - now you all have made sure anyone who comes along the thread later will know it was there. Sometimes it is worth just chilling out and seeing where things go.
Not as clear cut as you might think. (Score:3, Insightful)
First off, I note that the "mormon" tag on the article. If there were a quote from a black leader, I wonder, would you tag the article as "black"?
I would not be so quick to bury this guy in your haste to have weaker trademarks. There is an interesting question, buried in this article. It is, what does a trademark actually buy? A trademark is a sort of a definition of an invented word, administered today by the government. A search word is as also a definition of a word, administered by a private corporation and sold to the highest bidder.
When Linux trademarks "Linux", it is to say that he has the rights to the definition of this word in some way as it pertains to his product. But, if I buy Linux on Google, then, I get the right to define the word by having my definition be placed in a preferred position.
Thus, you almost have to view trademark as a contest between the federal first come first serve word ownership mechanism, and, a private enterprise word as an auction mechanism advanced by the likes of Google.
There is a real dividing line between corporation and state, and the irony here is that those who would argue that trademarks should be less powerful by definition argue that words should be auctioned, rather than licensed, and conversely, those who argue for strong government trademarks ultimately argue that the government should control more the meaning of words rather than the free market.
I would be willing to bet that leftists who casually seek to undermine business by eliminating trademarks might be well advised to rethink that position, as they should so many others. I can't imagine that they of all people would really want a world where the definitions of words are decided by the highest bidder. It runs the risk of undermining everything that they stand for, and for that reason I'd have to conclude that people rushing to digitally behead "the mormon" might well consider that the "the mormon" is doing them a favor.
The unfortunate reality of government (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Process should be fair. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:2, Insightful)
It would have dropped off on its own - now you all have made sure anyone who comes along the thread later will know it was there. Sometimes it is worth just chilling out and seeing where things go.
Maybe. But most times it's worth taking a stand and pointing out bigotry and hypocrisy in the editorial slant of holier-than-thou hipster tech blogs right when you find it.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually it does... (Score:4, Insightful)
Restricting the use of language doesn't work.
Actually it has and it historically does. That's why people do it. But this debate isn't really about restricting language, it's, deciding, who gets to own the definitions of words, the government, or the private sector.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually I think the link can be made. Utah is the Mormon core. The culture starts here (I live here) and radiates outward. Almost every lawmaker is Mormon. They are informed in their economic policies by the church. This law is, in effect, largely Mormon. Church and state are not so separated here. If you lived here, you wouldn't be considered to be a very good Mormon.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
+1. It's like having a story about water melons and adding a "black people" tag.
Actually, it's like having a story about laws regarding information technology and someones persecution complex [wikipedia.org] turns the thread about their religion, the places where it is practiced, and the vrious shades it comes in.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, my take is that most people consider Mormons to be Christians, although kind of an odd sect. But, many Christians refuse to acknowledge Mormons to be Christian. Actually I've talked to more than one Protestant that even consider Catholics to be non-Christian. It all seems a bit silly to me - If you consider Jesus holy, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not. Some Christians just have very very different beliefs and practices than other Christians.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:4, Insightful)
If you consider Jesus holy
By that standard, Jews and Muslims are Christians too!
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
But most Mormons do. They are a fairly conservative bunch on the whole. The story is about a conservative, Republican, Mormon dominated legislature trying to get the internet to play by corporate rules. The "mormon" tag is just as appropriate as a "republican" or "conservative" or "corporations" tag on the story.
People can legitimately object to stereotypes and prejudices. But sometimes those stereotypes are things that are legitimately true and that need to be said, even if they do offend. Not allowing this leads to situations in which we now find ourselves [canada.com]. According to the UN, we can now no longer "defame" religions or their followers, no matter how much we disagree with their beliefs or practices.
Forget the rough stuff. Mormons, by dogma, can't drink coffee and tea. I personally think this is a stupid prohibition. Muslims, again by dogma, can't draw pictures of Mohammad. I personally think this a really stupid prohibition. Catholics( especially in third world countries), again by dogma, can't use condoms. I personally think this is an appallingly stupid prohibition which costs lives every single day. I think the people who follow these prohibitions are being unreasonable, inconsiderate and irresponsible.
My opinions here could land me in jail in many countries for being "bigoted" or for "stereotyping" or for "hate speech". Some people will say that I'm tarnishing the image of whole groups of people, or that not all people in those groups support these prohibitions. Tell that to the people living in Utah, or Saudi Arabia, or Italy, who have to put up with prohibitions imposed on them in the name of the silent religious majority.
In conclusion, it is not automatically "Wrong(TM)" to stereotype a religious community. In fact, when that communities religious practices start to infringe on others liberties, it is right to stereotype, lampoon and indeed "defame" those practices, and to force that community to reflect upon itself. Religion should never be except from criticism, and especially satire.
Re:Utah? (Score:1, Insightful)
Hi. I'm from Utah.
It seems your stereotype-writer needs some calibration.
The University of Utah was one of the original 4 nodes on the ArpaNet. A Utah'n invented the TV. Utah is home to Novell. The Mormon church has an army of Java programmers. The Utah Education Network got IP connectivity to more of its schools, faster than any other state west of the Mississippi.
Would you like to tell me how I am out of touch with reality? I'm not Mormon, but maybe you think Mormons just don't get out much so they don't know what's going on. Except Mormons go on their "missions", creating the most well-travelled and bi-lingual state population in the nation.
They're not exactly known for their progressive views on technology.
The same might be said of girls...but that would be just plain ignorant, right?
Re:Uh, WordPerfect and Novell? (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess I'd better flee the country then, because hell if I want american culture validated by anything I do. O_
It doesn't matter if you flee, because you are a product of American culture.
a set of circumstances that operates completely and totally independent of "culture" and has more to do with the local environment they were raised in
Well, uh, the local environment is usually what culture is really all about... culture is the rules that are permissible behind closed doors as much as open ones.
But of course, people have been using coincidence to validate their crackpot theories (religious significance in particular) since the dawn of time
But the thing is, historically speaking, being a religious fanatic and having a conservative appreciation of culture matters. You can bash tradition and culture as much as you want, but they work. And, in fact, even though you might be anti-culture, even most anti-religious people and leaders of the far left will concede that theirs is not a project to rid the world of christian culture as it is to replace it with a culture of their own. Culture is just something that you can't escape. Even if you are in the "I'm not in any culture", crowd, you are still in the "I'm not in any culture culture".
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that Mormonism is the Scientology of early America. Anyone here who rallies against the COS when they do...what they do, but gives slack to the LDS, has been deluded by the idea that "real" religions are sacrosanct and shouldn't be attacked for any reason.
Bashing a religion is not bigotry, because your choice of religion is your own. Most monotheists believe that in order to have fulfillment as a sentient being, you need to be personally adored by the omnipotent, eternal creator of existence itself. To me that seems slightly self-centered. Christians worship and purport to love a god that demanded that his own son be brutally tortured and executed if he didn't want to see his favorite race of created beings done the same way. Mormonism and Scientology are even worse because they haven't been around long enough to weed out the people at the top who know that it's all lies but continue to profit from it anyway. Pointing out the flaws in that sort of thinking, or even making blanket statements about how stupid those religions are, is not bigotry, it's pointing out that a set of ideas is stupid. Not only completely different, but absolutely reasonable.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet you post as an Anonymous Coward. I think people have an obligation to stand up and say this without fear of reprisal. Because if you are only willing to say something without attaching yourself to it, you're really killing your own qualifications.
That said, I endorse the post above.
Re:remove the Mormons tag (Score:3, Insightful)
It's because those who live in glass houses would prefer no one throws stones...