Originally Posted by jragosta
Please try to get your head around the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.
Show me in the Constitution where someone has the right to monopolize a market. Show me where the Constitution says even one word about advertising.
I don't need to because that's not relevant. The constitution protects more than the things it explicitly states, there's no mention of abortion in there and yet it's a protected right thanks to Roe vs Wade. The first amendment applies to advertising, you can disagree with me if you like but the Supreme court has spoken on this issue on numerous occasions.
Let's take a recent example from back when the court was actually slightly more 'liberal' http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...lorrilard.html
The court found that the Massachusetts' interest in protecting public health didn't automatically supercede the Tobacco Firm's right to free speech. I can find more case law for you if you like, or you could just google it yourself. This quote though from Kennedy's majority opinion will hopefully be sufficientFor over 25 years, the Court has recognized that commercial speech does not fall outside the purview of the First Amendment. Instead, the Court has afforded commercial speech a measure of First Amendment protection “ ‘commensurate’ ” with its position in relation to other constitutionally guaranteed expression.
Google has no constitutional right to be a monopoly, but it may have a constitutional right to produce search results in pretty much whatever way they want that fits the constraints of free speech.
The right to free speech is not, and never has been, absolute. The right of the U.S. Congress to regulate interstate trade is well established both in the Constitution and in countless Supreme Court cases.
Aside from famously not permitting the (false) cry of fire in a crowded cinema,child pornography or death threats most other forms of speech are permitted. Commercial speech is more limited, but it's not even clear that Google's pages would constitute commercial speech, they could argue that they are in fact news or some other form of vaguely defined reportage.
The right to free speech is not absolute but it is the court and not congress that gets to decide where they lie. When a law stands in conflict with the constitution, the constitution wins. It is possible that the court would decide that Google's search pages are not protected speech, but it's far from certain, if I were a betting man I wouldn't wager on it.
More likely, short of Thomas, Scalia and Alito dying simultaneously from a bad batch of caviar, they will decide that they are, in which case any anti-trust complaints based specifically on search results would be non-starrters. Other complaints such as the YouTube complaint by Microsoft I mentioned just now would still apply though - the first amendment doesn't come into that case.
It isn't only Google where the first amendment is making trouble for the government these days, the credit rating agencies, Moodys, S&P and Fitch are a huge problem too. They are easily the least regulated part of the financial system and were significant actors in the banking crisis, but their ratings are issued as opinion and, short of proof of intent to defraud are thought to come under first amendment protection.