A quick point: the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
In other words, the right to “freedom of speech” in the United States is not defined as “anybody can say whatever they want” or “private companies cannot limit what is said by individuals”. Rather, it is the national legislature that is restricted from passing laws that limit free speech.
I think it means you can’t publish something (?) discussing your personal experience with a Google service, such as comparing Google’s AI with it’s competitors or commenting about the quality of search results you got. “Similar” is a very vague word. No idea what that means.
@Halfsmoke Not quite. The Supreme Court over the years has extended the coverage of the First Amendment to 1) all branches of the federal government (executive and judicial included) 2) state and local governments, 3) some private actors (when they are in the position of a government – a company town, eg). The government has also created free speech protections not in the First Amendment for people in private companies (ie, the National Labor Relations Act prevents companies from punishing people for talking about organizing industrial action).
In addition, various states have laws around what is protected speech that often go beyond the 1st Amendment (ie, banning employers for firing employees for out of office political activities). All 50 states have protections for speech in their constitutions, often broader than the first (CA is an example).
“Freedom of speech” as a legal concept in the US is actually substantially broader than the words of the First Amendment.
Whether or not it violates the First Amendment, it does seem to violate the Consumer Review Fairness Act and California’s “Yelp Bill”, or at least be in the area of violating them (not a lawyer though, so what do I know).
Yes, I live in Japan. The vagueness of the policy seems to make it apply to more than just a press release. It would seem to apply to even this discussion. Perhaps we are all in violation of their policy.