Google has gotten themselves embroiled in California's Proposition 8 battle. Opponents of same-sex unions used the search engine's advertising network to post messages on websites. Owners of these site who did not agree with those ads are pissed as hell.

Peter Kirn, from Create Digital Music, told the UK Times Online that: "Not only was this ad was something I disagree with - it could have said "Vote For McCain" even though I'm an Obama supporter - but it is also an ad that could be seen as offensive to some of my readers. This an extraordinary breach of trust we've put into Google ads."

Kirn tried to remove the ads using Google's own software, but the ads remained after several hours. The Times says that "he was forced to remove all Google adverts from his site."

Oh come now, Kirn. Why are you so shocked? You know how Google ads work. The company filters some ads through a shaky system based on some keywords from your site. Next thing you know - bam! You're an anti-Semitic, gay bashing, sex fiend who steals cars and

continued after the jump

has a crush on Sarah Palin. This is the nature of internet advertising in its current nascent state. Folks either need to be extra vigilant (taking action, using the software rigorously, etc); be accepting of snafus or how about just not dealing with Google in the first place?

Michael Arrington on TechCrunch took a different approach: "Google doesn't have any obligation to run ads like these, and I believe they would be correct in banning." While I agree that everyone should have the right to marry, I believe Michael to be off base when it comes to Google's responsibility as a media entity.

Google said the right thing in response to Arrington and other folks: "Google allows ads that advocate for particular political position, regardless of the views that they represent." Asking Google to ban ads opposing Prop 8 is against the whole "free speech", right to you own opinion thing. The ads were not volatile nor inflammatory. They were statements that read: "Support Marriage Rights - Vote Yes on Prop 8 To Protect Traditional Marriage." Do I agree? No. Do people have a right to advertise their opinions on issues coming before legislature? Yes.

Arrington is just really pissed off because Google CEO Eric Schmidt said he was for gay marriage, but allowed the ads to filter across Google. Wait... Are we calling for Google to truly be the Fox News of the internet - a one side search engine? Should they only allows ads for causes that they support? As a media giant, a media behemoth, I say no, Google should not. What if a big wig at Google was Pro-Life and he decided not to allow Planned Parenthood to use the number one ad network on the web, Google Ad Words. I'd be pissed. I would call it unfair, bigoted and a vast right wing internet conspiracy. See what I mean?

There were a billion internet ads hating on Obama that made me seethe. Some position points in the same vein as the Prop 8 example above. Others were just evil. There was also the reverse - where brand banners appeared on disreputable or down right horrid sites. Just ask Wal-Mart about their bad media buying experience this election season.

Should Google's software be better and offer more control to website owners? Hell, yes. However, internet advertising is sort of like the Wild West. In fact, Google Ad Words even more rugged, more outlaw. We all know this. We've all known this. Like forever.

More: Yet Another Problem With Buying Ads On Facebook