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.
Related Stories
India bans TikTok, WeChat and dozens more Chinese apps
India's government has banned TikTok and dozens more Chinese-made apps it says are a danger to the country. In a statement, it said the apps were "prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order". In total, 59 different apps were banned - including popular messaging app WeChat.
It follows weeks of escalating tensions along the disputed border between the two countries. Both India and China deployed more troops to the Ladakh region in June, and minor clashes have left at least 20 Indian troops dead. Satellite images also appear to show that China has built new structures overlooking the Himalayan border region.
India's Ministry of Information Technology said it was banning the 59 Chinese apps after receiving "many complaints from various sources" about apps that were "stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users' data in an unauthorised manner".
Previously: Bytedance: The World's Most Valuable Startup
Lawmakers Ask US Intelligence to Assess If TikTok is a Security Threat
Related: Indian Government Orders ISPs to Block 857 Porn Websites
China is Ramping up its Media Abroad – and Not Just in Chinese
Indian Court Orders YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter to Block "Defamatory" Video Worldwide
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:23PM (4 children)
This comment is not available in India.
Sorry about that :/
Ok, not really sorry.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @01:58PM (2 children)
Well that wasn't defamatory. Now if you said: "Indian judges suck donkey dick!", that might be defamatory.
This was bound to happen. One feature of the Peredo principle, is that as markets consolidate, they become more subject to ridiculous ideology. This is a glaring example of why NN is important. When the transmission of ideas becomes concentrated, the ideas themselves become concentrated.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:49PM (1 child)
Indian judges suck donkey dick.
European courts can kiss my ass.
If they have a problem with those comments, they can fuck right off.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10 2019, @01:32AM
...
Until you learn to use alternative access methods not under control of the government's.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @04:48PM
Eric Ciaramella [twitter.com] is also unavailable.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:04PM (1 child)
It's not a "principle", you have to be prepared to take your ball home. You tell India or the EU to fuck off because you are outside their legal jurisdiction. The onus is then placed upon them to geoblock you and explain this to their citizens.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:51PM
Yep, these multinational companies need to pick a country and live there. Then they need to tell all other countries to fuck off. Free speech is naturally incompatible with globalism, and there is no way to reconcile the speech laws of incompatible countries. Facebook is an American company, and must operate under American laws. If they are operating in a country that is incompatible with American laws, they need to close up shop in that country.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RandomFactor on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:18PM (4 children)
Are international companies the problem here?
One giant company with operations in multiple countries becomes vulnerable and subject to multiple countries' vagaries.
Dozens of companies that don't have operations everywhere are not.
USA-Tube.com would be able to completely ignore anywhere but the USA, while INDIA-Tube.com.in would be subject to Indian courts.
Here's a related interview following the injunction with the book's author: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKFN0OgsQrA [youtube.com]
And an article about the injunction specifically https://thewire.in/books/baba-ramdev-book-injunction [thewire.in]
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:30PM (1 child)
The problem is centralized services and uppity courts.
Make it practically impossible for an ISP to be ordered to censor the content, and the problem solves itself.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @04:16PM
Eric Ciaramella will be delighted.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @06:29PM (1 child)
YouseTube.com? YallTube.com? There's got to be some better option than USA-Tube.
Here's a novel idea: introduce US-based international companies to international TLDs. The rest of the world already uses them, but there seem to be precious few .us domains. Distinguish YouTube.us from YouTube.in and when the Indian courts demand something be blocked, do so only on YouTube.in.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Saturday November 09 2019, @07:34PM
Registering .COM/etc. domains is a practice engaged in by international, and non-international, companies and entities in every country on the planet (ignoring one or two outliers like NK possibly.)
ELIMINATING non international TLDs would have an effect, but would be an extremely disruptive approach.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:24PM (13 children)
They dont have any authority outside their own country, and id tell them to f-off.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:38PM (12 children)
I'll remember that the next time the USA starts telling others how they must behave - their laws don't apply in any other country. So Assange is not eligible for extradition to the US; he hasn't broken any US law because he has never even visited there. And the alleged crimes that Dot Com committed in New Zealand should not have been punished based on US law which has no applicability in NZ. Need i go on...?
Unfortunately, the US started this idea that one country's laws should be applicable in other countries.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Saturday November 09 2019, @02:52PM (3 children)
That works for me. Assange should not be extradited to the US. He should not even be held in Britain.
Australians should feel ashamed that their special forces did not extract one of their fellow citizens who was being illegally held.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @03:13PM
Idiots that get themselves entangledin other county’s laws or world mafia etc do not all need to be saved at gunpoint.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @06:35PM
And New Zealanders should feel ashamed that their police carried out an illegal home invasion and continue to persecute a local resident as a special favor to movie companies and the American FBI.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10 2019, @01:45PM
Assange did the crime of skipping bail. There was no illegal detention for Assange under that crime.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Saturday November 09 2019, @08:20PM (4 children)
This is conflation of different things.
International extradition treaties (Kim .Com, Assange) are mutual agreements between the respective governments and have the force of law. In effect extradition IS complying with local law. Breaking a country's laws in no way requires physical presence in that country.
In this case Indian courts are taking a company with Indian operations and telling it what it can or can not do elsewhere. No international treaties involved (actually there probably are, who knows.) It sucks, but they can do it if you want to have Indian operations or protect Indian assets or market.
If the company didn't have an interest in India it could, should, and probably would, ignore the hell out of this.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by legont on Saturday November 09 2019, @09:56PM
And any human on the planet has to know all the laws of all the countries in existence and comply with them. Ignorance is not an excuse as well as mutually exclusive laws.
Yeah, right.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday November 09 2019, @11:00PM
Maybe this should be a warning to those invested or planning to invest in India. There's a price to pay for that cheap labor.
(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
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:40PM
You should. Tell the US to fuck off and die. You'd be right to do so.
And then tell the same to Facebook, Google, etc., because they need to die as well.
Yes, the US government's case against Assange is an unconstitutional attack on freedom of the press, so even if he were a citizen, it wouldn't matter. The fact that he's not even a citizen just makes it worse.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Saturday November 09 2019, @11:13PM
USA's laws apply anywhere they have power, military, economic, or political.
> Unfortunately, the US started this idea that one country's laws should be applicable in other countries.
How cute.
In case you weren't aware, the only thing that matters is who has power. Everything else is either a facade or enforced by some entity with power.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 10 2019, @06:43PM
i agree. fuck the feds.
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 09 2019, @04:02PM
Dear fakename welfare sucker liar "bzipitidoo": We're laughing @ you & your kind running from a question on "russia" https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=34553&page=1&cid=918224#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] & your blamegame admitted fail (like your entire wasted life bzipitidoo) https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=34489&page=1&cid=916679#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] which you admit yet another fail in your wasted life fakename. Prove you even have a job welfare sucker. Only job you have is spouting more traitor "leftist" bullshit online & when you're confronted you run. No denying it. You are a loser!
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Saturday November 09 2019, @04:48PM
Or maybe they will wait to see how the Chinese courts rule.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Saturday November 09 2019, @05:04PM (5 children)
'I want to make this fact to stop existing by my global command.' - weakminded people who have no business in government or leadership positions.
Also, lol, that is not how any of this here internet thing works.
btw what was the idea they want to globally erase? This should be in the description....
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday November 09 2019, @06:35PM (4 children)
If you have no business presence there, they have no authority over you. But they do have authority over the local ISPs.
Also, you'd best be sure you're never on an airplane that gets redirected to land on their turf.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Sunday November 10 2019, @11:16AM
You mean me personally? For having said this?
Did I just get put on another list? Why be concerned to land there again?
yay 2019
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 10 2019, @03:29PM (2 children)
Not directly, however that's where extradition treaties, which have the force of law, come into play.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday November 10 2019, @06:13PM (1 child)
When was the last time a corporation was extradited?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday November 10 2019, @08:23PM
Dunno how corporations are covered in extradition treaties specifically, but it certainly seems like they are as there is the whole Meng Wanzhao thing going on.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды