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."
Why? The constitution only regulates the US government. It doesn't regulate neither the Chinese government nor private entities inside or outside the US.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Because telling businesses what information they must provide to the public is the same as the old unconstitutional "fairness doctrine". Would you like to require that Rachel Maddow have Sean Hannity on her show every night to rebut her points? If a search engine is providing biased results, don't use it. Providing FALSE information could be a problem, as that would be libel.
I don't understand why I have to explain this on a forum that's populated by teens and adults. You can't use your rights to infringe on others' rights.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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.
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!
Freedom of speech doesn't mean I have to give you my microphone.
The whole point of freedom of speech is to allow people you disagree with to say (or write) what they want. If the westboro church can protest soldier funerals, this ruling should be a no brainer. The search engine is writing the search results in a biased way but the judge has ruled that is free speech. Fine with me... now back to searching on google.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
It's really not that... a private company does not have obligation to provide a unfiltered/non-curated/fair search engine. It's like Fox News website - that's the "best information" for you, they think.
You are apparently not an American, as evidenced by your lack of understanding of our founding fathers and their writing of the constitution. Private individuals, or corporations, are not bound by the constitution, only the government is. If we were to bound private individuals it would run counter to everything they stood for. In other words, if you force private people/corporations to say what they dont wanna say then you dont have a democracy or a free people.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Corporations have grown to a size that the power and influence it has over the public is comparable to government, if not surpassing it.
No, you just don't know your history. Large corporations have long been able to compete with sovereign states in wielding economic, military, and political power. The American Revolution was rebellion against the East India Company nearly as much as it was against King George III.
The founding fathers were perfectly aware of the effects of megascale corporatism. Even the largest companies today have a fraction of the power the EIC did at it's peak. When Exxon starts deploying carrier battle groups around the world, then it will be comparable.
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
So, your solution to Baidu censoring searches to to censor MY access to Baidu?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
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.