Type to search


Google is reversing its decision to stop the anti-court packing group from serving ads


Google said Monday it is reversing an earlier decision to block ads from an anti-court packing group after Fox News asked questions about the move a sign of the tech giant’s upcoming challenges in defining what “political” is, less than a month after the post-Capitol Uprising policy to block political advertisements was passed.

Google twice defended the decision against the Coalition to Preserve group in the Independent US Supreme Court – aka Keep Nine – to delete their ad, claiming that it was in line with the more general policy on political ads. However, following phone and email inquiries from Fox News to Google on Friday and Monday, the Google team discovered that the anti-court packaging ad was “accidentally marked,” according to a Google spokesman.

Keep Nine previously said that Google moved the target post to a policy that seemed pretty specific.


The Google Policy, which went into effect on January 14th, covered “election-related content in the US, including ads relating to the candidates, the election, their outcome, the impending presidential inauguration, the ongoing presidential impeachment, violence in the US -Capitol or refer to the future “. planned protests on these issues. “

Claim Nine Executives Claim Their Google Ad Didn’t Touch Any Of These Points. The ad read: “KeepNine.org/Stop Court Packing / 9 Justices / Bipartisan Support / Help Save the Independence of the Supreme Court / Join our mailing list today.” Keep Nine attempted to submit a similar ad after the inauguration publish, but was again rejected. In addition, the group claims that other political groups have recently successfully published Google ads.

Andrew Miller, the former Democratic attorney general of Virginia and president of the Anti-Court-Packing Coalition, claims that Google is censoring and using monopoly power.

“My mother was a journalist. I was raised to be a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, so I was deeply offended, ”Miller told Fox News on Friday, before Google changed course. “A private party can do what it wants, but that can only go as far as the government grants protection under Section 230.”

The Supreme Court, Wednesday, July 8, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo / Andrew Harnik)

Miller was referring to the often controversial section 230 of the Internet Decency Act, which protects platforms from a certain liability that publishers are not granted. Lots of critics I mostly conservative I have said that big tech companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter should lose protection if they block certain points of view.


“They have monopoly power partly because of government action,” Miller added. “The idea that the state could outsource censorship was not something the founders had in mind when drafting the First Amendment.”

But it is not about censorship, said a Google spokesman. On Friday, Fox News spokesman referred to a news article about the policy of blocking political advertisements. In follow-up emails and a phone call, Google re-pointed the policy, but said it would look closely at how the policy applies to the ad that does not mention candidates, impeachment or other prohibited matters.

Re-contacted on Monday, a Google spokesman emailed Fox News, “the team actually discovered that their ad was mistakenly flagged” because of Google’s use of a combination of automated and manual enforcement. Late Monday, Google expected the ad to run on Tuesday.

The Coalition for the Preservation of an Independent Supreme Court of the United States supports a constitutional amendment through its website KeepNine.org to keep the composition of the Supreme Court with nine judges. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1869 to limit the court to one Chief Justice and eight other Supreme Court justices, but the constitution does not specify the number.

President Joe Biden appointed a commission to investigate Supreme Court reform. Court packing would be similar to what President Franklin Roosevelt tried and failed in his second term when the judges frustrated him by crushing New Deal legislation. Roosevelt had large Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, which nonetheless opposed him on this issue, while Biden has narrow Democratic majorities. So it doesn’t seem likely that judges will be added to the Supreme Court in the near future.

The anti-court wrapping group attempted to post its first ad on Jan. 18, but it was rejected. Keep Nine viewed Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20 as a stumbling block under Google’s policy and posted a slightly revised ad on Jan. 21 that read, “KeepNine.org/The Keep Nine Amendment / Stops Court Packing / Bipartisan Support / Unite America / Join our mailing list today. ”But the new ad has also been blocked. The ads were aimed at anyone who had Googled the term “court packing”.


The coalition provided Fox News with the full message from Google explaining the ban, including advocacy.

“Therefore, political content that includes advertisements for political organizations, political parties, political advocacy or fundraising, as well as individual candidates and politicians, may fall under sensitive events – US elections,” the statement said. “Your ads were disapproved because of the content on the site. I could see the website talking about advocacy for political issues, which says, ‘Contact your senator and congressman and ask where they stand on Keep Nine.’ “

Keep Nine’s director Roman Bühler said encouraging the public to connect with their member of Congress is the point of public advocacy.

“We are not a political organization. No candidates are named. No political party was mentioned, ”Buhler told Fox News.

So far, 60 House Republicans and 15 Senate Republicans support a change to leave the Supreme Court composed of nine judges, but Buhler and Miller stress that the coalition is non-partisan.

It was MP Colin Peterson, D-Minn., Who last year first supported the proposed constitutional amendment in the House of Representatives to lock the court under nine judges. However, Peterson lost his seat in November.

In addition, eight former Democratic attorneys general, five former Democratic Congressmen and incumbent Democratic delegate Michael San Nicolas, a non-voting member of the Guam House of Representatives, also support the proposed constitutional amendment.


You Might also Like

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *