Now, one is fundamentally against gender selection, and believes any reasonable human being would be against gender-selection, female feoticide, and female infanticide.
However, one wants to give these companies some benefit of doubt here. Here's why:
- All these companies are sticklers for doing the right thing. They maintain a list of things you cannot advertise on their networks, and stick by it. These aren't exactly shady people willing to lay their grubby hands on every last paisa that comes along. Google's list, for instance, is up here, and worth a look.
- Also, their terms and conditions state that you can't advertise for anything that's illegal. (eg, Google India T&C here -- states "Customer shall not, and shall not authorize any party to, ... advertise anything illegal or engage in any illegal or fraudulent business practice." Clear enough.)
- this happened because some operations person on the ground didn't have 'gender-selection kits' on her blacklist, and approved the ads to be shown. And it didn't go on that blacklist because someone probably did the lazy thing, and created their India blacklist by copying that of some other country.
- MS/ Y!/ G would do well to add 'gender-selection kits' to their not-accepted blacklists -- and review those lists completely for other such gaffes, while they're at it.
Certainly. By allowing such ads to run, these companies have violated the laws of a country they do business in -- something their well-staffed legal departments are there to prevented them from doing.
But: Does my Supreme Court need to get involved?
IMHO, No. This could have been solved by sending a polite "I see you're goofing up legally" letter to Y!/G/MS instead of filing petitions. The justice system of the country is already overburdened, without having to deal with Pesticide-in-soda variety litigation that is more drama and less substance.
Let our tax money be put to better use, guys!
2 comments:
Hehe never realized you were one of those people who says 'one just read'...or 'one is fundamentally against' etc. It is kind of funny. Makes me associate you with Geeta.
Well I do wonder if Google etc would actually bear the legal burden because their T&Cs indirectly safe guard their interest right?
I do agree though that we don't need stuff like this getting top priority in our legal system.
Also suing these guys doesn't make sense to me. I mean tomorrow if there is a wall open to advertisements and someone goes up and sticks posters of gender-selection kits then what? We issue notices to the wall?
I hadn't realised this either, till a friend pointed it out... god knows why I tend to get more pompous when blogging... trying to consciously keep tabs on it for the moment :)
As for google... I suspect the T & C doesn't quite save them, but why slap a case on them at all? They're responsible enough to correct things if they guy would have just pointed it out to them, I think. This is just one of those publicity-type cases, man. It could've been solved much more simply, is my main point.
Its not as if Google is Coke.
Post a Comment