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

Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[gbulmash]

I actually feel bad for Yahoo in a way. They're in a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't." Had they refused the Chinese government's request, their Chinese operations could have been shut down by the government. They might have even seen their employees arrested or harrassed by the government for failing to play ball.

So they play ball, and they get sued in the U.S.

Makes me think a bit of the situation in Cuba. Lots of U.S. firms would like to do business there, have it opened up to trade, see relations normalized. I mean we've normalized relations with Vietnam even though POW/MIA groups feel the country still hasn't been as forthcoming as it could be on the subject of missing servicemen from the war. But POW/MIA groups can't swing Florida in a presidential election, so every president has given in to a small special interest group, and kept a hard line on Cuba.

So, while American companies are denied access to Cuba as a market, a source for materials, and a source for goods, those benefits go to companies in countries where a small block of Cuban immigrants don't hold the disproportionate political sway they do here.

The same can be said about China. If we let human rights activists use lawsuits to penalize companies for following Chinese rules while doing business in China, it just opens the door for companies from countries where human rights aren't as important and suing isn't as easy.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[Doc Ruby]

Makes me think a bit of the situation in Cuba. Lots of U.S. firms would like to do business there, have it opened up to trade, see relations normalized. I mean we've normalized relations with Vietnam even though POW/MIA groups feel the country still hasn't been as forthcoming as it could be on the subject of missing servicemen from the war. But POW/MIA groups can't swing Florida in a presidential election, so every president has given in to a small special interest group, and kept a hard line on Cuba.

So, while American companies are denied access to Cuba as a market, a source for materials, and a source for goods, those benefits go to companies in countries where a small block of Cuban immigrants don't hold the disproportionate political sway they do here.

When I was in Cuba a few years ago, there were plenty of American corporate offices, all in one heavily guarded (by Cuban military/police) compound in one of the best locations in Havana, right in the center of the city. There were probably other locations, too, and certainly enough business operations to support their offices.

The Cuban "embargo" is nearly entirely a fraud, except the part that keeps individual Cubans cut off from the rest of the world, and (most) individual Americans cut off from Cuba. It's proven to do nothing to force political change there, and to promote political corruption here in the US (and in Cuba, and elsewhere in cooperation). It's one of the greatest political crimes in American history. And it's going on right now, and will continue tomorrow. Along with the propaganda that it is really an embargo.

Re:Feel Bad For Yahoo! No Win Situation?

[nevali]

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.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Daimanta]

In my country it is forbidden to use exclamation marks in the middle of a sentence. You will be arrested and prosecuted. Anything you type can and will be used against you. Resistance is futile.

Re:There is always a choice

[Hoi Polloi]

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."

Re:Can someone please tell me

[Sunburnt]

How would Americans feel if some Chinese company doing buisness in the US claimed chinese law should be upheld in the US?

I don't see the relevance. Perhaps you meant, "How would Chinese feel if some Chinese company doing business in the U.S. claimed that Chinese law should not be upheld in the U.S.?"

Since the PRC government is more than willing to prosecute Chinese nationals for violations of Chinese law in parts of the world where the PRC does not have jurisdiction, this is still a bad comparison to make, especially since the U.S. will do the same thing in certain instances.

The question is: if the U.S. government is willing to prosecute some violations of U.S. law overseas, why not others?

And the answer is simple: Yahoo (and fuck you, marketdroids, I'm not using your infantile punctuation) has a better lobbyist presence than child molesters.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

I believe they are correct according to the law.

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.

Re:Because they were forced?

[Remus Shepherd]

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.

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

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.

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.

Different situations

[ShatteredArm]

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. ;)

Re:Yahoo! is correct

[Sunburnt]

The United States is about profits, about getting influence through lobbyists and financial manipulation, about local officials skimming off the top just like these thieves, and about a pack of fearful, demented businessmen who want to divert the American populace from their incompetence and hypocrisy by giving them iPhones, MySpace, and a War on Pretty Much Everything.

The names and ideologies change, but it's the same game pretty much everywhere.

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.

Re:IANAL...

[lennier]

"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."

Unless you were IBM, but that was a while ago. They're on our side now.

Re:Yahoo Doesn't Have A Choice

[Sunburnt]

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.

Gee, that would make so much more sense if there was some unalienable right of corporations to do business with repressive regimes. Of course, there isn't, so I don't see your point. If an American company has to have their Chinese operation shut down to avoid violating human rights, then tough titty to them. Doing business with dictators has always been risky for American companies.