SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Indian court orders YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to block "defamatory" video worldwide
When the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled that European courts can order Facebook to takedown content globally, if it's deemed to be illegal in Europe, Facebook warned that the ruling "undermines the long-standing principle that one country does not have the right to impose its laws on another country." Now Facebook's warning is manifesting outside of Europe with an Indian court recently ruling that YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter must block a video globally because it's deemed to be "defamatory" by the court.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Indian Court Orders YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to Block “Defamatory” Video Worldwide
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 34 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
New crypt. See /usr/news/crypt.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday November 10 2019, @08:19AM (1 child)
I'm not sure which side of the argument you are coming down on, so I apologise if I have got the wrong message from what you have written.
So perhaps all women drivers should be arrested in the USA, because it is forbidden in many Moslem countries by law? Doesn't seem to matter that the women have never been to those countries nor was the offence carried out there, their laws must be respected and applicable wherever they wish them to be. Likewise, young girls meeting young men without the presence of a chaperone. Arrest them all, that what somebody's law says.
And, of course, it proves that the EU has been right all along - it can fine US companies even if they do NOT have a physical presence in Europe. Assange has never had a 'physical presence' in the US either.
This rubbish interpretation of the law needs to stop now. Countries do NOT have any right to enforce their laws unless the law was broken by somebody INSIDE that country. This was the problem with rendition. The US moved combatants to countries where they would have broken the law if they had carried out fighting in that new country. But defending ones own country is not a crime. I'm not arguing the case that what the defenders did was always correct and legal under some interpretations of the law, but that moving them to a third country in order to apply one's own interpretation is not legal either.
US citizens are obliged to obey US law even if they are not in the US. Most countries have a different interpretation to that. If I am no longer resident in the UK I have to obey the laws of the country in which I am resident. Barring a few exceptions (Official Secrets Act, etc) I am not simultaneously obliged to follow UK law. But changing from one country to another does not mean that I am no longer required to answer for crimes carried out in a previous country, but only in the courts of that previous country. One of the requirements of extradition is that the crime that one is being extradited for must ALSO be a crime in the country in which the person is currently detained. There are many learned counsels in the UK that argue this is not applicable to Assange.
It reminds me of a similar situation that occurred several centuries ago - something along the lines of 'Your laws don't apply to me if I haven't got the right to vote in your country', ...providing that I am not in your country, but it was phrased very differently: 'No taxation without representation'.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:25PM
Well, that's an ironic straw man :-p
I was actually attempting to clarify a poorly framed argument, not coming down at all. Although that might potentially have been lost in editing and rewrites...
Curious: What about a man identifying as a woman that drives? Or a woman identifying as a man?
I'll try again.
The contention made - that Julian and Kim are immune because they had never been to the U.S. is specious. They are subject to the legal jurisdiction of the countries they are in. Those countries honor their international treaties by law and have extradition treaties with the U.S. that cover the class of crimes they are accused of.
This isn't in itself a bad thing, there are plenty of crimes which have EFFECT and/or ACTION outside of the country the individual resides in. National borders are used routinely as a way to shield malicious actors who actively harm others from legal retaliation. This sort of international cooperation is intended to pierce that shield and is a two way street.
A more reasonable discussion would focus on which criteria make extradition valid and which do not, did those criteria apply in either of these cases, whether the crimes accused are invalid for various reasons, etc.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды