Slashdot Mirror
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."
It is a good thing they weren't around to do business in Pol Pot's Cambodia. "We had no choice, we couldn't do business there unless we helped them kill all the intellectuals."
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Why most Americans think that US law trumps other countries laws even inside those countries?
How would Americans feel if some Chinese company doing buisness in the US claimed chinese law should be upheld in the US?
They had an opportunity to make money in China at the expense of ruining this guy's life because he believed in freedom.
I think that the issue is that companies like Yahoo and Google can earn a lot of money by allowing people in China to use their online services. Hopefully (and I think that at least some of the Google people have espoused this idea) providing such services to the Chinese people will lead to the downfall of authoritarian censorship and control. Of course, in order to keep operating in countries such as China, companies such as Yahoo may be legally required to submit to the whims of the current justice system...
So the big question is: Even if Yahoo is being required to cough up a few dissidents, in the long run is Yahoo causing more good (i.e. positive social change) than harm, or are they just in China to make money?
coding is life
American law does not apply in foreign jurisdictions. The Yahoo! disclosure in China was more than legal under Chinese law, it was illegal for Yahoo! to have ignored the request. Cast in another light, Slashdotters mostly thought that American copyright law should not have applied to allofmp3.com, which was based in Russia. It is sad that Chinese law is so horrible, but part of doing business in China is to follow the law there.
Imagine if the American subsidiary of a Swiss bank ignored a subpoena from the FBI for information about one of its clients, who was thought to have links with Al Qaeda. I would imagine the bank would get shut down by law enforcement. This is the same thing; America should not be able to force other countries to submit to its laws simply because it is a big country with lots of money.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
I think you'd better reconsider your analogy. It is the West that is addicted to the crack here, and is willing to sell out on every principal that it once fought so hard to preserve for cheap toothpaste, cheap toys and cheap dog food.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Really? Last I checked, it was still illegal for Americans to violate human rights, even while overseas. Also, hasn't the "compelled to by the government" defense been pretty thoroughly rejected already?
Of course, this may have changed during the last seven years, just like the government's understanding of habeas corpus and the Fourth Amendment, so perhaps you're right.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
Not as simple as that. Yahoo's employees in China could have been arrested if they didn't comply. Thus, it was a case of who Yahoo allows to get screwed -- their employees, or some people to which they have no connection. They made the best choice, to protect their employees.
The *right* choice would have been to not get into that situation in the first place. When it comes to doing business in China, the only ethical move is not to play. But very few businesses are that ethical...or have any ethics at all, where the potential for profit exists.
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
Exactly. I see this variety of doublethink at farmers' markets up here. Many people in this moneyed college town, who will fulminate endlessly about the need for agriculture companies to stop polluting and start paying their workers a living wage, are somehow offended that a local organic farmer is charging $4/lb for tomatoes. "But I can get tomatoes at the store for less than half that!"
Lots of folks preach a good sermon, but aren't willing to make the sacrifices to put their words into action.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
I actually feel bad for Yahoo in a way.
So do I, until I remember that they're in China through choice.
All of these western companies set up shop in China and then say "well, we have to abide by local laws" when somebody complains about them colluding with the Chinese authorities. There's an easy solution: don't set up shop in China. You won't win anyway.
If all of the western corporations steered well clear of China (and other questionable regimes), and indeed Chinese companies, it would send a far stronger message than anything any human rights organisation would do, and shed an extremely favourable light upon the western corporations. Call it a voluntary trade sanction if you will.
As it stands, human rights laws are flouted the world over because corporations and governments get away with it. If everybody stopped doing business with the companies and regimes responsible, the world would be a slightly nicer place.
Nothing says "fuck you and your oppressive dictatorial policies" than the rest of the world refusing to take part in your GDP growth exercise: China's capital reserves wouldn't last forever, after all.
Those examples are cases where one goes to another country and does something that is not expressly prohibited by local laws. In Yahoo's case, they simply were avoiding breaking the foreign law. Different situations. Even so, I would say it is still wrong to prosecute someone for breaking a US law while abroad. Just because Canada does it doesn't make it right. ;)
The real irony is now this out-of-control economic "success" in China is spawning a corrupt attitude that you can package any shit you like in a box, stamp "Barbie" on it and send it off to eager kiddies in far off lands. The West is getting its just desserts for doing business with a nation which has completely removed the notion of the rule of law over the last century. China is about profits, about getting influence through the Party and military hieararchies, about local officials skimming off the top just like the old warlords of Nationalist China's day, and about a pack of fearful, demented technocrats who want to divert the Chinese populace from their incompetence and hypocrisy by giving them cell phones and flatscreen TVs.
I guarantee you, some day, when the cowards at the top and the corrupt in the middle are finally taken out, Yahoo and its ilk will not be remembered as liberators of China, but as profiteers.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
The solution to the Chinese problem is not to ignore our own faults and problems. So your point is moot.
There is absolutely nothing preventing us from solving both problems, because they are totally independent of one another.
Likely the solutions are the same though, the people in America need to rise up and take back their government. And no I am not one of those people with an overly idealized view of America that has no historical basis. I realize that profit and business is an integral part to American politics, and always has been. But it's a matter of degree and a matter of fairness.
It probably all fell apart when corporations were given enough legal freedom that they no longer had to serve the community at large.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Would supplying genocide chemicals be too far even if it is not in violation of a nation's laws (obviously)?
There is no such thing as "genocide chemicals"; chemicals that have been used for genocide have many legitimate uses. So, the real question you have to ask is: can you hold a company responsible for doing business with a regime engages in genocide. And I think that has a clear answer: you can if, and only if, the government where the company is operating has restricted business with that regime.
Do international agreements mean nothing?
They mean something. What exactly they mean in the US is to be determined by this court.
However, generally, I think it would be good for Yahoo! not to be found guilty. If the US government believes that China violates human rights, it should take a firm stance and set clear rules for companies like Yahoo! Right now, politicians want to have their cake and eat it too, by condemning China to score political points and then still doing business with it.