Yahoo! Asks That Chinese Rights Suit Be Dismissed

Eviliza writes that Yahoo! is asking that the suit filed against it over the infringement of a Chinese journalist's civil rights be dismissed in US courts this week. The company has stated that it had no choice but to give up the journalist's information, as it's Chinese subsidiary is subject to Chinese laws. "'Defendants cannot be expected, let alone ordered to violate another nation's laws,' the company said in its filing. But Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights said the company had failed to meet its ethical responsibilities. 'Even if it was lawful in China, that does not take away from Yahoo's obligation to follow not just Chinese law, but US law and international legal standards as well, when they do business abroad,' he said."

Comments

Yahoo! is correct

[geoffrobinson]

If you set the legal precendent that you can sue in one country about something you were forced to do according to the laws of another country, chaos would ensue.

I'm not thrilled that Yahoo! did what they did. Primarily because I don't like putting exclamation points in the middle of my sentences, but I believe they are correct according to the law.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Daimanta]

Do international agreements mean nothing? If a nation has sufficient power, he can pretty much all international law. *cough US and China cough*

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[NeutronCowboy]

What we do know is that the technocrats and military officers at the top of the Chinese political system have no problem torturing dissidents and turning the tanks on their own people.

You know what's really scary? The amount of Chinese living in China and abroad that supported and still support this action. And I'm not talking about the Chinese equivalent of a redneck - I'm talking about smart, educated people who just happen to think that western-style democracy will destroy China.

They are killers with no meaningful legal apparatus to prevent them from doing anything they please.

True. Strangely enough, no matter how autocratic, the Chinese rulers have always been terrified of failing their Heavenly Mandate. If they can't deliver on their promises of stability, food and glory for the nation, they'll lose their mandate and.... well, this hasn't happened in a while, so it's hard to say how that'll play out. But there is a good reason why current Chinese leaders are very worried about keeping a good face: they know that they're at the top only for as long as they deliver what the masses clamor for (currently: having money and returning China to its historic superpower status). The execution of the minister responsible for the equivalent of the FDA shows how seriously the Chinese Party takes the current quality scandal. They know that if they let this fester, the entire country could unravel.

That said.... this is merely an explanation of the Why of how China works. I loathe the Chinese emphasis on national stability over individual liberty. But that doesn't change what we can continue to expect from China.

I think not.

[apodyopsis]

they did not know what he was being investigated for?

I think not.

Beijing State Security Bureau
Notice of Evidence Collection
[2004] BJ State Sec. Ev. Coll. No. 02
Beijing Representative Office, Yahoo! (HK) Holdings Ltd.:
According to investigation, your office is in possession of the following items relating to a case of suspecting illegal provision of state secrets to foreign entities that is currently under investigation by our bureau. In accordance with Article 45 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the PRC, [these items] may be collected.

The items for collection are:
Email account registration information for huoyan1989@yahoo.com.cn, all login times, corresponding IP addresses, and relevant email content from February 22, 2004 to present.
Beijing State Security Bureau (seal)
April 22, 2004

see:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070730-chin ese-dissident-e-mails-what-did-yahoo-know-and-when -did-it-know-it.html
http://www.duihua.org/press/news/070725_ShiTao.pdf

And even if it is local law, that does not make it the right thing to do. Even then they should of been more upfront to congress when asked about it. Shi Tao will be in jail until 2014 and thats no laughing matter.

Re:Can someone please tell me

[catbutt]

It doesn't trump the law there. Both laws can apply, which means that a company doing business in both countries might find itself unable to comply with applicable laws.

If they don't like being in that position, they don't have to do business in both countries.

IANAL...

[f1055man]

but I don't think this will be dismissed, at least not for the reason given. It doesn't matter if it was legal or legally required in the PRC. Check the wikipedia page for Alien Tort Claims Act (enacted in 1789 mainly to deal with piracy) or google search unocal and slavery. Unocal got nailed for using slave labor in Burma. The Burmese government provided the slaves. The court doesn't care if abiding by US law means breaking a foreign government's law or not doing business in that country. A great legal scholar once said, "tough shit" (so he was my roommate and rather mediocre).

I think this is a very good thing. The ATCA simply requires corporations with US operations to follow very basic standards of human decency. If you want to assist a foreign government with genocide or running prison labor camps for dissidents don't expect to do it from U.S. soil. Corporations hate this of course, there's good money in human rights violations. Ethical and moral arguments clearly did not work for Yahoo and Google so maybe a lawsuit will remind them that there are consequences for being an accomplice.