Congressmen Condemn Companies for China Policies

koweja writes "Members of Congress have taken the step of criticizing various IT companies for their international policies. This includes Google and Microsoft, for what they call 'bowing to Beijing' and 'putting profits before American principles of free speech'. Most of the specific incidents have been covered on Slashdot already. Yahoo and MS countered by pointing out that event censored network access 'enabled far wider access to independent sources of information for hundreds of millions of individuals in China and elsewhere' than not entering China."

Comments

International Law

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

The Supreme Court has established worrying precedents of late, preferring international to domestic law in the interpretation of our Constitution; there is a point, perhaps, where globalism impinges upon national sovereignty.

Likewise, as Eastern Europeans were forced to sing The International under the Bolsheviks on pain of death; our capitalist institutions seem hell-bent on destroying the last vestiges of provincial (domestic) accountability.

It's bizarre how, at their limits, capitalism approaches Bolshevism.

Re:International Law

[dbolger]

It's bizarre how, at their limits, capitalism approaches Bolshevism.

People tend to see "left" and "right" wing politics existing as alternate ends of a spectrum, getting more and more unlike each other as you travel in either direction. I think, though, that politics tends more towards a circular representation, with "center" parties being very alike, differing on relatively few issues, then party's politics diverging as one move's further in either direction, so that center-right and center-left were roughly opposite, and finally coming together again so that far-right and far-left were once again almost indistinguishable.

I'm sure somebody else has come up with the idea before; I came up with it myself when I was reading 1984 as a kid, and had a problem understanding if the government was supposed to be extreme right or left. Sorry if I haven't explained it particularly well; its clearer when drawn on paper :)

Legal requirement

[DoofusOfDeath]

And yet, they sustain the laws that basically force publicly traded companies to have profit maximization as their main goal.

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation:

Profit Maximization. In Anglo-American jurisdictions, for-profit corporations are generally required to serve the best interests of the shareholders, a rule that courts have interpreted to mean the maximization of share value, and thus profits. Corporate directors are prohibited by corporate law from sacrificing profits to serve some other interest, including such areas as environmental protection, or the improvement of the welfare of the community. For example, when Henry Ford cut dividends and reduced car prices in order to increase the number of people who could afford to buy his cars, his brother-in-law, Mr. Dodge, a shareholder, sued him for having harmed profitability: Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 170 N.W 688 (Mich.S.C. 1919). Mr. Dodge succeeded and went on to form his own car company with the proceeds of the suit. Modern corporate law is settled and clear that corporate directors are only allowed to act in the best interests of the corporation, and that this means maximization of profits (see for example J.A. VanDuzer The Law of Partnerships and Corporations (Irwin Law: 2003, Toronto) at pp. 271-2). Corporations may be able to make charitable contributions to society, but only where this will enable profit maximization (e.g. if the public relations value of the contribution would boost profits more than any other potential use of the funds).

Hypocricy

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they condemn ebay for bowing to German bans against Nazi memorabilia?

Did they condemn companies for continuing to do business with a mysogynistic France which denies an education to Muslim women who choose to follow their religion?

Is it freedome of speech for all (including the whackos) or freedom of speech only for those opposed to countries that we fear?

Is it freedom of religion for all or freedom of religion only for members of acceptable belief within the Southern Baptist Convention?

Wait a minute..

[turambar386]

Wasn't the US one of the first nations to lift economic sanctions after the Tiananmen massacure?

Re:What?

[Ibag]

This is *literally* saying "Slavery is Freedom"

I don't understand why Americans don't seem to grasp the concept of a middle ground. Sometimes, something in the middle can be better than any extreme view. In the case of search engines in China, the common American perspective seems to be that we have only two extreme choices. Google is EVIL for allowing any censorship and therefore must either pull out of the market entirely or must force the Chinese government to allow them to operate uncensored. Ignoring issues of sovereignty, money, or human rights, why is anything between these two ends not acceptable?

The Chinese government doesn't care enough about Google to bow to threats of "do it or we're taking our ball and going home." Likewise, Google pulling out means that, for the people of China, some information will be harder or impossible to find compared to if Google stayed.. Google entering the Chinese market under these terms benefits everybody involved. Why do we demand that they either do the impossible or that they stand by their "values" to the detriment of everybody involved?

Re:Can't limit it to tech companies

[Mr. Underbridge]

I'd be all for it if it were more unilateral. It would help force China to play more by international rules than by their own.

1) Who makes these "international rules?" Not a representative body that I can vote for, that's for sure. Screw that.

2) What gives us the right to do that to China and not vice versa?