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."
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.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
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.
--
make install -not war
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
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.
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.
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.
Tags != Comments, and -1 (Troll) != -1 (I Would Respond Angrily To This Poster So They Must Be Trolling)
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.