When the Supreme Court rules on whether to allow free advertising, it will be a big deal for online marketers and advertisers, says Josh Liss, CEO of AdWords.

The Supreme Court has handed down its first ruling on a free speech case in years.

The justices handed down their decision last month, meaning that the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is now reviewing the case.

In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme said that the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to post an ad that does not target someone because of their political affiliation. 

The justices said that in the past, they have been concerned about how the Court’s interpretation of the First Amendments would impact companies’ ability to determine what people can and cannot see. 

In its ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts said that if the government could prohibit certain types of speech, then it has the right to determine who can and can’t see the content of the ads that it posts. 

“The government has every reason to be concerned about the potential chilling effect that this opinion may have on speech that is already free and open, and the First Ammendment guarantees that speech,” Roberts wrote. 

For free advertising to work, ads have to be targeted at people who have specific interests in an ad, the court said. 

Roberts went on to say that there are ways for advertisers to reach a certain segment of the population, including people with different interests than the majority of people who would likely be paying for the ads. 

As a result, if the Court ruled in favor of free advertising in this case, it could have a huge impact on how companies advertise and pay for ads online. 

This is a huge victory for free advertising and advertisers because it will allow advertisers to get paid for advertising that has already been paid for. 

A lot of companies have been fighting for years for ad placement to be allowed in the same way that they currently advertise on TV, but Roberts said there was a limit to how much the court could allow. 

But the Court said that it has been left with no choice but to take this case. 

Advertisers will be able to spend as much as they want in terms of money for advertising, but the court has said that this decision will not allow advertisers any more power over what they are allowed to spend. 

If the court rules in favor, it means that advertisers will have to spend at least $1 million to get a free spot in an advertisement, which could help advertisers make more money. 

With the ruling, advertisers will be forced to use ad blockers to block ads in their ads, which may be a headache for advertisers because they can’t get around the blocking of ads by their own ads.

In its ruling on the case, the Ninth Cir.

said that advertising that is blocked by a third party must be posted in a different way and that a blocking company must make sure the ads are in a way that does justice to the audience. 

According to the Ninth Court, the ad blocking law that is currently in effect would be in effect for a year and a half, allowing a company to block an ad for up to six months without having to pay a fine. 

That means that a lot of the advertising currently being paid for will not get paid, even though they were advertised in the ads, according to the court. 

These ad blockers will likely be able make it easier for advertisers and companies to sell their products and services to those who do not want to see ads that target them. 

Companies may not be able buy the ads they need to get those ads to go to the people who do want to view them.

This means that it could be harder for companies to make money, especially if they are making a lot more money than the ads were going to be paid for, according the Ninth. 

We will be watching closely the next two years to see how the Supreme Courts interpretation of this case will play out.

This is a really big win for free speech in this country, and it will help us continue to build a free and competitive marketplace where everyone can be heard and every voice heard. 

Read more about the free advertising case on the Ninth Circuits website. 

[Featured Image by Shutterstock/Pawel Zeman]