Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Court: Chinese Search Engine's Censorship Is 'Free Speech'
jfruh writes: "You will probably not be surprised to learn that Chinese search giant Baidu censors a wide range of content, particularly political material deemed to be pro-democracy — and does so for users everywhere, not just in China. A group of activists filed suit against Baidu in New York for violating free speech laws, but the judge in the case declared (PDF) that, as a private entity in the United States, Baidu has the right to provide whatever kind of search results it wants, even for political reasons."
The Founding Fathers of the US are crying in their graves.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
... yeah, what stoner thought there was a case here?
Corporations are people. And people have a right to free speech, right? Which, in the case at hand, is a right to censor. Right?
Well, no. Corporations are legal fictions, and coporate personhood has gone too far.
Corporations are nothing more than a piece of paper, an act of incorporation, and should be treated as such.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Private entities (Such as search engines) do have the right to post whatever results they care to post. I have the right to say whatever I want on my own posts, but no one has an obligation to repeat or link to them.
Heck, on the area I post most often, search engines don't even look at those sites.
This is the right decision. Private companies should have the right to say whatever they want, assuming there is competition (not government mandated monolpolies or the like)
Dear Americans,
Congratulations for your great achievement of diluting the fundamental laws of freedom stated by your own founding fathers. Now you can officially put corporate policy above freedom, managers will be able to fire employees just because they dont like what they're saying, or maybe put them in the company's brig because they didn't quite accomplished their given tasks. After all, if you work on my lawn, I can do anything with you, 'cause those stupid freedom things don't apply in a privatized context.
And this is how the country we all used to look at as an model of democracy and true freedom managed to become the best friend of those who only live for the authoritarian way of thinking.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
The US Constitution requlates state goverement since the passage of the 14th Amendment. A New York free speach law can not limit the speach of the owners and employees of Baidu. They are allowed to have bias.
Seems counter to some of the issues they've faced being taken to task for the contents of their search results... guess this means they have free reign to present whatever they like too?
Why are there so many law suits against Google for similar reasons?
... The judge was also reported to say "now that's decided I'm going to pick up a couple of strippers who will whip me while i wear their underwear"
Our knee-jerk reaction to this here in the U.S. is predictable: "Oh shit, there goes the 1st Amendment!".
Not so simple, though: Baidu is a private company here in the U.S., even if it's blindingly obvious it's 100% driven by the Chinese government/Chinese communist party (same thing, really) and as such they can provide whatever search results they want. Same would go for Google, or Yahoo, or Bing, or whoever -- the caveat being that if, say, Google decided to start censoring search results to the extent Baidu does, then Google would be finished as the de-facto search engine here in the U.S. However: Nobody is forcing you to use Google, Yahoo, Bing, Baidu, or any other search engine here in the U.S. Even if you're a Chinese National living here in the U.S., unless the Chinese communist party has someone standing there with a gun to your head, you're free to NOT use Baidu, just like you're free to NOT use Google, Yahoo, Bing, or any other search engine, too. Don't bring me your "We don't REALLY have a choice" crap, either, because you do, even if you don't like the choices you have. Also, finally, someone else could always start up their own search-engine company if they think there's a niche to fill, and they could make a gigantic point of how they censor none of the results -- and they might even unseat everyone else in the process.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
To decide otherwise would be like requiring BET to run "Leave it to Beaver".
lol , that is another major nail in coffin for the US system first 2 that come to mind being,
1) companies are considered people(except of course, noone goes to jail when company 'accidentally kills a bunch of people),
2) no limits on campaign donations
now 3) Time Warner, GOOGLE, Apple, NBC, whoever can freely slant the views in the favor of the owners.
So the majority of the people, can be legally led like sheep... We need a law at the very least requiring 'news' agencies to report facts and all sides equally or something... Equal air-time for all political candidates with > 1% of the vote?
Corporations are nothing more than a piece of paper, an act of incorporation, and should be treated as such.
Agreed on that point, but that leads me to the opposite conclusion. Individuals pursue values through institutions. It is the underlying right of the individual employees, workers, owners and executives that give the association of people that collectively we call a corporation the same rights as the individuals that are in association with one another. Call it whatever you want, a corporation or a knitting group, it is the rights of the individual to associate and retain their individual liberty both acting individually or in concert which is what must be respected by law.
No, that's not free speech. Publishing that statement would be libel, assuming it weren't true.
libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
Different issue.
Now you're into Slander and Libel territory, and that's a different set of laws.
I have seen no evidence in recent history that the US constitution regulates the US government.
No, that's not free speech. Publishing that statement would be libel, assuming it weren't true.
libel: a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
No that is free speech. The government cannot bring up criminal charges against you. The judge, as a private citizen, can bring a civil suit against you.
In other works you are free to say it but your are not free from the consequences of your speech.
I've been in China and I've been in the USA.
There are places in San Francisco, even in central part of the city, where it is just scary to walk. The same about the LA and NYC.
Certainly the USA is a great country with immensely interesting culture, still there are serious social, racial, economical problems there, perhaps, even more acute than in China.
At least, I do not remember being scared just to walk in a city in China.
America has got a very efficient advertising and propaganda machine, probably, this is what makes the difference.
This ruling makes sense when you consider the alternative:
Government would have to police each search engine to make sure it was permitting full free speech.
Then, the potential for abuse is huge. Government could simply drop something -- like, say, far-right information -- off the list and allow it to be censored while claiming it was legally not censorship.
Government could also force search engines to incorporate other information that is favored by government, and penalize them if that information didn't make it high in the rankings.
We don't want government in the business of determining what "free speech" is in legal terms.
Futurist Traditionalism
hasn't the tech party line always been "governments can't censor us, the internet sees that as damage and routes around it" or something like that?
it sure looks like governments are doing a pretty good jobs of destroying that meme, be it Turkey or China...or even perhaps the NSA/US.
and of course i *know* vpns and proxies can be set up...i wonder how many typical chinese citizens know how to set those up tho.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
It can most certainly be applied to a business operating under the jurisdiction of the United States, the same way Google is expected to conform to the Chinese government's censorship requests to operate within their country. That's not American centrist thinking, that's just a logical way to assume businesses operate.
This is clearly not discriminatory, they provide the same service to everyone. Their is a difference between a service which cannot discriminate and product, which can be limited in scope, at least insomuch as the burden on a racism/discriminatory product is significantly higher, since it's far easier to delineate prejudiced behavior from a prejudiced product.
I recommend everyone to read J. Furman's judgment: it's crystal clear, and a pleasure to understand.
The argument establishes that what Baidu is engaged in is speech, not advertising or anything, I think these two quotes (or quotes of quotes) sum everything up beautifully:
There's nothing wrong with this decision. In fact, it's the right decision. As long as there is healthy competition, there's no reason any arm of government should be able to force a business to operate a certain way, outside of actions or inactions that are ostensibly illegal or abusive.
It's not like there aren't a thousand other capable search engines you can use instead.
Am I free to not say and free from the consequences of not saying?
CanHasDIY, the quote you mention is a simplified headline. The real issue is that in the United States, companies are free to operate as they wish and provide whatever filtered information they wish to provide. So, this ruling is a victory for freedom, not the other way around. Would you really want the government decide what kinds of information is "correct" to withhold or not?
The real issue is that in the United States, companies are free to operate as they wish and provide whatever filtered information they wish to provide. So, this ruling is a victory for freedom, not the other way around. Would you really want the government to decide what kinds of information are "correct" to withhold or not?
Not getting all the information from all parties is anti democratic and simply wrong. If you don't have all the info, I take that has manipulating people...fraud in other words.
This is pretty straightforward. On the principle that I do not believe in slavery, I do not believe that anyone has the right to tell Baidu what to do, including what search results to return. Really this is a very weak attempt by these activists, and they are violating their own principles by trying to restrict the freedom of others.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Next up - Comcast exercises its free speech by "censoring" Netflix.
So many people here do not get what freedom is. Freedom is NOT forcing others to provide information you think they should provide. The very essence of freedom of speech is to decide what to say, and what not to say. Those that think Baidu should somehow be compelled to provide the "correct" information sound like they'd be happy with a "Ministry of Information" that gets to decide what is "correct" speech, in both content and quantity. The freedom of speech is a guarantee that you will be offended and pissed off by what someone says, or what they leave out that distorts context. Think hard. Deal with it. Defend liberty.
For me, in my years on the internet, I've come to believe and stand by the premise that a web server or ANY service offered to the public internet from your equipment is an extension of your home. People who visit are guests of your service. They have to follow your rules or they will be told to leave. It's very simple and I think it rightly extends to businesses operating websites.
This ruling is no different than my operating a gaming forum and asking people not to post about knitting, as it's not the topic we're discussing on my service. You also will not find any information about knitting on my forum, and rightly so.
Search engine is a little different I suppose, but I think since it's pretty obvious they're omitting results they have concluded to be unsuitable (they are filtering content) I don't see a problem. I think where a problem begins is if that search engine claims to return unbiased complete results. That's dishonest.
Another way to think of it would be as a television station. If you object to the content they've chosen to show you, change the friggin channel.
If there were a problem with Baidu, then why not with Fox and all of the other seriously biased news outlets?
There are a lot of other search engines out there. It doesn't bother me that search engines I don't use wouldn't give me results I want.
If somebody wants to set up a search engine that caters to a certain demographic (members of a religious group, political persuasion, age group, whatever) then people are free to use it and the rest of us are free to not use it.
It's not that simple, China is continiously striving to lock down and restrict the information available to their citizense and it's much worse than recent studies suggest. It's not just youtube, blogspot, foreign news agencies, soundcloud and 300.000 other high profile sites that are being blocked, it's also rampant nepotism blockage going on, depending on which city you're in. Studies only focus on Beijing and Shanghai, two international hubs with relaxed blockage. Go to any other second/third-tier city and it gets much worse. For instance, where I live, there is a major kite manufacturer, guess what, all foreign sites related to kites are blocked. If I travel to another city, it's not blocked. There is a steel exporter here too, guess what, all international steel exporters are blocked in this city too. You can see the pattern. All in all, the internet is useless here and nobody have the guts to say a word. I do not either actually because I've had, huge vans (almost bus like) military vehicles, stacked with antenas pointed straight at my office, for days. There isn't even any point trying to hide it for them, nobody can mess with them.
So if you have the choise of doing business or not with these folks, obviously not, you should go to war with them. That's what you should.
use some other service. Freedom of speech means that they can provide whatever results they want, but so can Google.
The founding fathers of the United States of America were NOT supporters of Democracy as they knew from history and experience that Democracy leads to Oligarchy. Instead they founded a Republic!!!
Perhaps the first post with a long list of replies should learn about US founding history.
Maybe next someone should sue Wikipedia for declaring their article non-notable. That's censorship.
Private companies have no obligation toward any kind of "freedom of speech".
Yes. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled freedom of speech includes the right not to say something.
It still comes up, most recently in a current case where airlines are complaining about font sizes in government-mandated costs -- they want to call out government costs in giant numbers, but government mandates require some other number pleasing to politicians to be the largest.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Somebody really opened up a can of dumb in this room didn't they!
What am I replying to? Everything!
and freedom is tyranny and work is joy and....
Do you want the government coming into your office and telling you what info you will and will not release to the public, enough said.
Like it or not, the government does exclude some speech from being "free". Threats and defamation are excluded, as is the ever-popular "shouting fire in a crowded theater". Even obscenity can be limited, though fortunately that exception has been narrowed in the past few decades.
Not that I want these to be the camel's nose under the tent. I'm just pointing out that the potential for abuse is already there. I think it's perfectly reasonable that you can't threaten somebody and call it "free speech", but it sets a dangerous precedent.
When a government tries to censor something, it usually means two things:
The right to force a business which has sole control (in China) of access to the world's news and uses that access to control the populations' perception? That right comes from our ass. Same as the rights to free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom not to be killed like a dog on the street if some business deems it necessary. There are no "rights" other than those we seize for ourselves, never have been. Rights are artificial and we buy them with intelligence, sweat, and blood.
We do not derive our rights from a "piece of paper", as Bush dismissively called it, but from our collective will. The constitution of the United States is not a holy book. It was a flawed piece of work, as its writers understood. That's why they crafted the 9th Amendment: rights enumerated in the document are not the static and only rights of man. Other rights exist, and they left that open for future generations to define.
The writers lived in houses without communications systems. They walked or rode horses. Corporations did not really exist. They did not envision a world in which mega-sized non-human non-governmental essentially lawless and untouchable and unfindable entities would seize control of the news outlets and "privately" censor the world.
NO. They would not approve of that and neither should anyone else. They'd kill to stop it.
A world of "private" businesses controlling our spaces, communications, food, water and employment is a feudal oligopoly. We did not build our country only to finally grant utter tyranny to rich Randian collectivists we can't even begin to overthrow because they don't physically exist. Hell, they have their own private police and armies to protect them from overthrow.
Take the right or live in hell. Your choice. Unless, of course, you're planning on cooperating with the new world order and being one of the bosses.
In China is there is only one microphone. Sucks to be the rest of the universe, I guess.
Shoved into a Supreme Court ruling by a former railroad trust lobbyist turned Supreme Court clerk using his unique position. Never was our choice.
Corporation only exist by government fiat. They have no other existence and derive all rights from our common will through our laws. They are a game, a fiction, a cheat.
God handed the constitution to Jefferson on a mountain in the 1780's? The founders did not envision a private (government-controlled, for fuck's sake!) company controlling access to the world. They didn't have to. They didn't want to. They expected us to evolve and add more rights. They did not see the document as holy writ. They gave us the 9th amendment to slap us in the face with that fact. Rights exist whether or not the holy book explicitly enumerates those rights. So, fuck the constitution, as I am sure Jefferson would say. Fuck private company takeover of the world. Corporations are legal government-created fictions. They are OUR dogs. We are not theirs. HEEL, bitches.
Rights are not created by laws. They are given to men by God. Atheist like to use the term human rights. But the idea is the same. The Bill Of Rights limits goverment to protect rights. These bills were designed to protect individuals from the "common will of the people." Majorities often suppress minorities. Majorities don't need the bill or rights.
Coporations don't exist by goverement fiat.(at least not most of them. Post Office could be an exception) They are just companies that the goverment wants to regulate. I have family that owns an LLC (limited liabilty corporation). it is not a fiction. It is a small buisness run by three people. It has a building, assets, and customers. Not imaginary at all. It is not a game.
Censorship is free speech. Granted it's a private business. They can do what they want, provided they are not acting as agents of the (American) government.
Linking to "objectionable" material (ie: "infringing") is not? Since when does copyright overrule the 1st amendment? Let's find a way to see censorship as copyright infringement. Then maybe we can put an end to it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Too bad, this could have put Faux News, Breitbart and Drudge Report out of business.
And War is Peace.. ....What else is new these days?
Should have been thrown out before it went to trial.
People really do not understand the Constitution, especially the First Amendment.
I actually don't agree with the notion that "a corporation is just like a person." A corporation is a legal person, which is a useful legal fiction that captures the fact that they have certain rights and not others. Recent US legal rulings have broken with 200 years of common law precedent and stated that corporations have the "right to free speech."
Therefore as a matter of logic and legal precedent, the statement that "Censorship of corporations is censorship of individuals" is simply wrong. Firstly because a clear distinction exists between corporations and individuals. Secondly because "free speech" has somehow been equated with the spending of money, when a clear distinction exists between spending money and speech. The supposed free speech of corporations during election cycles (among other times) is what is properly known as "public relations and lobbying."
The tortured redefinition of words from the dictionary in order to achieve ideological ends is amazing.
I will agree that corporations are fully "persons" in law the day that:
1). A corporation can die of old age, sickness, murder, suicide or by legally applied death penalty;
2). A corporation can be conscripted into military service;
3). A corporation can be required to serve on jury duty;
4). A corporation can marry, have children, and divorce;
5). A corporation can decide to accept God, the church and religion. Or not;
6). A corporation spends it's teen years acting a bit weird, listening to loud music, worrying it's parents and experimenting;
7). A corporation can have sex with another corporation and then has to decide whether this relationship is "for keeps", just a hookup, or friends with benefits;
8). A corporation needs a haircut.
Note that in all cases, I will not accept any substitutions or euphemisms. Therefore no interpretations, like Die = Bankruptcy or Dissolution, Military Service = Juicy Military Contracts, etc. A corporation has no inner life and therefore cannot be concerned with the metaphysics of life and death! Also, no substitutions of individuals of the corporation, for the corporation itself.
Use Google! /s
Yeah. They to have the right to censor their search results if they want to, being a private entity in the U.S. Though, if they don't make clear that they are censoring search results, then I imagine they open themselves up to being sued for false advertising if they claim to be a 'internet search engine'.
One of the old distat- er, I mean, dictatorships around here once declared that the people did have a democracy, and that it was a "relative democracy". It being implicit that such was much better, nicer, and more responsible than the ... unrestricted (hence wild, chaotic, uncontrollable oh the horror) kind.
Just another event of Dictatorial relativism(?) - and it's widely scattered infestations of collaborators and sympathizers.
All very true. Thank you for your comment.
However, I think there's another dimension to this, which is the question of "what is speech"?
To me, protected speech is the ability to write and publish political, scientific, social, artistic, etc. ideas of some substance.
It would not include statements made in a crowded theater at all since that's not a public forum.
Regarding obscenity law, it would protect the ability to publish obscene material but perhaps not display it.
The main point as the founding fathers(tm) saw it was to protect political speech from being censored before it was able to reach its audience.
Futurist Traditionalism