Excerpt from gayadvocacy.com newsletter.
THANKS AMAZON.COM, FOR NOTHING
We all owe a big "thanks" to Amazon.com for being associated
with supporters of the anti-gay Helms amendment. Over the
past week or two, a home-grown online protest sprouted up
against Amazon because the company's banner ads were
appearing on Dr. Laura's Web site, including a high-profile
ad that popped up on a page urging Laura's millions of
minions to contact Congress in support of the Helms amendment.
Now, why pick on Amazon? Because the company has an explicit
terms of service policy about use of its banner ads in their
"associates program" (this applies to Dr. Laura's Web site).
According to Amazon's rules, sites that are not eligible for
this program include sites that: "promote discrimination
based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual
orientation, or age." Now, no matter where you stand on the
Boy Scout issue, Dr. Laura's Web site clearly promoted
discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Boy Scouts
by urging support for the Helms amendment, I mean, that was the
entire purpose behind the amendment.
How did Amazon respond? First they told customers that Dr.
Laura's Web site did not promote discrimination. Then, a few
days later, they switched gears and started saying that Dr.
Laura's site did not promote "illegal" discrimination
(meaning that discrimination against gays and lesbians is ok
so long as it's not against the law? - also, the word
"illegal" appears nowhere in Amazon's policy). And now, just
a few days ago, Amazon has again changed its tune, arguing
that more speech is the answer to hate speech. Nice try,
but again, it begs the question of why Amazon ALREADY HAS a
policy that restricts speech on Web sites that promote discrimination
, but when that policy is applied to anti-gay discrimination, they're
suddenly scrambling to grant an exception.
I guess the moral to this story is that next time you get
fired from your job because you're gay (and in around 40
states it's still legal to do so), you can take solace in the
fact that at least it wasn't "illegal" discrimination.
You can read more about Amazon's policy, and the whole
debate, here:
http://forums.about.com/ab-uspolitics2/messages/?lgnf=y&msg=228.1
:Q
THANKS AMAZON.COM, FOR NOTHING
We all owe a big "thanks" to Amazon.com for being associated
with supporters of the anti-gay Helms amendment. Over the
past week or two, a home-grown online protest sprouted up
against Amazon because the company's banner ads were
appearing on Dr. Laura's Web site, including a high-profile
ad that popped up on a page urging Laura's millions of
minions to contact Congress in support of the Helms amendment.
Now, why pick on Amazon? Because the company has an explicit
terms of service policy about use of its banner ads in their
"associates program" (this applies to Dr. Laura's Web site).
According to Amazon's rules, sites that are not eligible for
this program include sites that: "promote discrimination
based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual
orientation, or age." Now, no matter where you stand on the
Boy Scout issue, Dr. Laura's Web site clearly promoted
discrimination based on sexual orientation in the Boy Scouts
by urging support for the Helms amendment, I mean, that was the
entire purpose behind the amendment.
How did Amazon respond? First they told customers that Dr.
Laura's Web site did not promote discrimination. Then, a few
days later, they switched gears and started saying that Dr.
Laura's site did not promote "illegal" discrimination
(meaning that discrimination against gays and lesbians is ok
so long as it's not against the law? - also, the word
"illegal" appears nowhere in Amazon's policy). And now, just
a few days ago, Amazon has again changed its tune, arguing
that more speech is the answer to hate speech. Nice try,
but again, it begs the question of why Amazon ALREADY HAS a
policy that restricts speech on Web sites that promote discrimination
, but when that policy is applied to anti-gay discrimination, they're
suddenly scrambling to grant an exception.
I guess the moral to this story is that next time you get
fired from your job because you're gay (and in around 40
states it's still legal to do so), you can take solace in the
fact that at least it wasn't "illegal" discrimination.
You can read more about Amazon's policy, and the whole
debate, here:
http://forums.about.com/ab-uspolitics2/messages/?lgnf=y&msg=228.1
:Q