Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.

Indian Court Orders YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to Block “Defamatory” Video Worldwide

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday November 09 2019, @12:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the or-what? dept.

upstart writes:

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.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:25PM

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:25PM (#918609) Journal

    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.

    Breaking a country's laws in no way requires physical presence in that country.

            So perhaps all women drivers should be arrested in the USA, because it is forbidden in many Moslem countries by law?

    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