Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by MichaelDickens 34 days ago
It's relevant because the fact that it's religious organization was an important fact in the judge's ruling. From the article:

> If Kars4Kids resumes advertising, [Judge Apkarian] wrote, its ads must contain “an express, audible disclosure of its religious affiliation and the geographic location of its primary beneficiaries and the age of the beneficiaries, specifying whether they aim for children or families, or both.”
2 comments
aranchelk 34 days ago
Having to audibly name the religion/ethnicity of beneficiaries of charities is a pretty wild requirement for a US charity.

That may have been the judge’s framing, but it seems off from what I typically expect from mainstream US news.

link
EdwardDiego 34 days ago
It would depend on what the precise federal/state law regulating charities is - it sounds, to me, (I'm a Kiwi, but heard one of their ads on the radio today in an Uber in SF) like they need to be more specific about what charity they're raising money for - the after just said "for charity".

I'm sure you'd agree that if I was advertising in the name of kids to raise money for a charity, and it happened to be that the particular charity I was raising money for had determines it should give Hamas money to help those kids, that potential donors would prefer to know where exactly their money was going to.

link
futter9 34 days ago
It's not at all wild if the charity presents itself as non-discriminatory (ostensibly to deceive "outsiders" into misguided donations) while specifically benefiting the ethno-religious group of its administration.

It's clearly deceptive and exploitative.

link
zeroonetwothree 34 days ago
The religious disclosure requirement feels like it may be a 1st amendment violation. Also perhaps even the rest of it as “compelled speech” (why does the judge decide how they fix their ads?) is it typical for charities to disclose exactly how they use their funds in ads? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that.

I agree the ads shouldn’t be misleading of course.

Next you’ll tell me that UNICEF isn’t exclusively saving starving orphans in Africa.

link