Facebook has blocked ads from the Just Say Now campaign backing California's Prop. 19, which aims to legalize marijuana and goes to the state's electorate on the November ballot.

Some Prop 19 campaigners are claiming that this decision by Facbeook infringes on the group's 1st Amendment rights. However, it is common corporate practice to regulate the type of content they accept for advertising campaigns. Facebook defended its policies saying that the group's use of the marijuana leaf contravened its policy of non-promotion of "smoking products."

The interesting thing here is not that Facebook said no to the ad, it is that social media communities are powerful enough to mandate that a company explain the reasoning behind a business decision. The Just Say Now group has begun a petition against Facebook's decision stating that, "By censoring marijuana leaves, Facebook is banning political speech. This is unfair, and unacceptable."

But is unfair and unacceptable the same thing as illegal and violative of the 1st Amendment? Is an ad for Marijuana legalization considered political speech? And if so, does this take away a corporation's right to decide what advertisements that they accept for display on their website or other corporate materials?

What it comes down to is this: this type of advertising decision is not a 1st Amendment issue, its a preference issue couched in business - it's not politics.

by: Sheheryar Sardar, Esq. & Benish Shah, Esq., Sardar Law Firm LLC