Here's a list of the the Top 10 searches on Google for today. What's up with the ACT results? Did the results just get released today?

1. act scores

2. act student

3. actstudent.org

4. act.org

5. act login

6. flu tracker

7. golden jubilee canada

8. eppicard

9. rev. jim jones

10. act test

And here's something crazy. With all these top 10ers being about ACT scores, I thought I'd see why Rev. Jim Jones was getting so much Google attention. (I know there was a special the other night on MSNBC on the Jonestown Massacre for the 30th anniversary of the tragedy, but that's about it.) So I Googled Rev. Jim Jones, and I got taken to the Wikipedia entry. In that entry I came across this:

Harvey Milk, who spoke at political rallies at the Temple, and wrote to Jones after a visit to the Temple: "Rev Jim, It may take me many a day to come back down from the high that I reach today. I found something dear today. I found a sense of being that makes up for all the hours and energy placed in a fight. I found what you wanted me to find. I shall be back. For I can never leave."

Harvey Milk? At the Peoples Temple? Whoa.

Americablog reports:

In a nutshell, Google has an explicit policy for its advertising that says no ad may advocate against a protected class, and among those protected classes is "sexual orientation." Yet, Google is running ads from anti-gay forces advocating the repeal of gay marriage in California, and advocating against gays in Arizona.

From Bilerico, where the story originated:

After I inquired with Google to see why they approved the ads since they are obviously in violation of the posted policy, spokesperson Diana Adair told me, "Google allows ads that advocate for a particular political position regardless of the views that they represent. We currently allow ads advocating both for and against Proposition 8." She directed me to another page of the advertising policy entitled, "Political Advertising."

Thinking that there must be a different set of rules in place for political advertising than other ads, I clicked the link and this is what met me.

"Political advertising is allowed. We permit political advertisements regardless of the political views they represent. Stating disagreement with or campaigning against a candidate for public office, a political party, or public administration is generally permissible.However, political ads must not include accusations or attacks relating to an individual's personal life, nor can they advocate against a protected group.

Both of these blogs think that Google is flat-out wrong to be doing this, and I am inclined to side with the bloggers. But, and it's a big "but," I think Google might be right about this.


Might. It's painful and more than vaguely repulsive, but Google is accepting ads from a political group voicing a political opinion, however wrong that opinion is. If Google allows anti-Prop 8 ads, then they must accept the pro side as well. Do we really want a company as large and rich and powerful to step in and interfere with political advertising? Sergey Brin, one of the co-founders of Google recently stated:

However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.

While, to many of us gays, gay marriage is a basic human right, it is a political issue to many others. Brin was expressing his opinion and the codes of conduct implemented within Google. He was not stating an opinion that would mandate the behavior of the companies dealing with Google. If the ACLU can take on less than savory clients in order to defend all of our basic rights, then I think Google should probably do the same thing.