chsw

Hmmmmm.

Now, if they stopped linking to websites critical of their advertisers, you might have a motto violation.

I would also speculate that it’s largely a contraception issue. A straight girl may be more likely to go on dates knowing she might have some fun with the boy, so she is more likely to want to be on the pill or to bring condoms or other contraception. A gay girl may just be dating for cover and may not really consider that she might decide to actually have sex on her dates until it’s too late. Ditto with the boys. The sex on those dates may be more likely to be a last-minute decision, with corresponding lack of birth control planning.

Google doesn’t have to allow mass banning of ads mentioning a trademark. It could take the same approach that they do on YouTube. To wit, “If you think your trademark is being misused in an ad, then submit a complaint about that ad and we will evaluate it.” And, in fact, Google would be perfectly within its rights to take a totally opposite stand to their current one. E.g. “If you think your trademark is being infringed by an ad, then show us a court order and we’ll remove the ad.”

That is definitely not to say that Google should run irresponsible ads that put it in legal jeopardy. But, taking a firmer stand would encourage use of their service and simultaneously discourage hyper-sensitive trademark holders from obtaining sweeping bans on use of names that do not violate their trademark rights.

“The survey data did not provide Saewyc with concrete explanations for the heightened risk of pregnancy among gay, lesbian and bisexual youth, but she said there are several possible reasons.”

The ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union filed this lawsuit in April 2004 on behalf of an Internet Service Provider (ISP) that received an NSL. Because the FBI imposed a gag order on the ISP, the lawsuit was filed under seal, and even today the ACLU is prohibited from disclosing its client’s identity. The FBI continues to maintain the gag order even though the underlying investigation is more than four years old (and may well have ended), and even though the FBI abandoned its demand for records from the ISP over a year and a half ago.

That paragraph seems to imply that the ISP asked for help in fighting this (which probably put it in some jeopardy) and didn’t cave and just release the records to pacify the FBI. I want that company to be my ISP!

Also,

The OIG also found that the FBI continues to impose gag orders on about 97 percent of NSL recipients and that, in some cases, the FBI failed to sufficiently justify why the gag orders were imposed in the first place.

97% gag policy. So, basically by default the FBI uses a power that says, “The government is doing its best to ruin your life and you have to shut up and let them do it.” I just wanted to re-emphasize that the FBI is generally no less corrupt and overreaching than local law enforcement. The government’s claim that their targets are “the worst of the worst” bad guys is definitely not bolstered by the fact that it’s the government that wants secrecy and the ‘bad guys’ who want light shed on what’s going on.