More on the Hague Convention

RadioheadKid writes: "An article at Cnet news discusses the implications of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments. According to Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, "People don't realize what a disaster this could be." It appears that the treaty may not make it to ratification, but "we can't assume it will die of its own accord," Stallman said. "We have to stop it." One of the examples of the implications of this treaty is US based web sites having to comply with the narrow laws of countries like China or Morocco." Quite an informative article about the current state of the treaty. CPT has a set of pages with lots of background information on the treaty.

Comments

Before you laugh...

[rkent]

... keep in mind that this could well pass, and might even make sense to future generations. Think about it: the Net as world-wide resource. Seems logical that it would be subject to every jurisdiction where it's viewable. Of course this would produce a network of homogenized, inoffensive, blase information, but probably lots of people already don't realize it's more than that. I mean, when you log on to AOL and read the AOL news and stream some AOL music, the only indication that there's anything marginally offensive on the net is that pesky pile of Porn-Spam in your inbox.

Despite all the objections we have, the main reason I see our legislators rejecting it is that it obligates US-based ISPs to be content police for every jursidiction on earth, which is clearly ridiculous. AOL, @Home, and Earthlink will scream bloody murder about this obligation, and they'll be fighting the good fight for once. If anything remotely like this is to be ratified, it should place the burden on China, Morocco, et al to reject content they find unacceptable, even if that means banning everything from outside thier borders... after all, I mean, if Morocco has a law against all depiction of nudity (for instance), I suppose I respect that law, but let THEM enforce it. That's not the job of my U.S.-based ISP, thank you very much.

---

US censorship more probable

[santeri]

" One of the examples of the implications of this treaty is US based web sites having to comply with the narrow laws of countries like China or Morocco."

Or Europe based web sites having to comply with the narrow laws (concerning e.g. nudity, drugs, or cryptography) of hyporcrite US.

Pot, kettle, etc.

______________

Wake Up Call

[clark625]

Perhaps this is a good time for those of us who read /. to consider the reality of the US system of government. Senators, congresspersons, and even presidents cannot know absolutely everything about every issue. They simply haven't the time, energy, or desire. And we can't condemn our representatives for this.

Instead, we need to individually contact our representatives. They aren't all evil, and they actually do care about their constituents. But they have to make decisions based on the information that they receive. It is our responsibility as citizens to help our government make proper decisions.

It is irresponsible for us to simply complain when our government is on the brink of doing something terrible for our rights and needs. We must instead be an interactive force in government. The NRA and AARP are so successful as lobby groups because of their members. Perhaps it's time for geeks to think about membership in a similar lobbist group. Shoot, if the FSF gave out membership cards and bumper stickers for $50 a year, I'd do it.