Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Sued In US Court For Blocking Page In India

Posted by timothy on from the proper-jurisdiction dept.

itwbennett writes: Facebook has been sued in California by the non-profit organization Sikhs For Justice for blocking their page in India. The group has charged Facebook with engaging in 'a pattern of civil rights violation and blatant discriminatory conduct' by blocking its content in the whole of India. It has asked the court for a permanent injunction on further blocking of the page, access to Facebook's correspondence with the Indian government about the block, and an award of damages, besides other relief.

27 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Use Google+ if you don't like Facebook's policies?

    1. Re:Google+ by MagickalMyst · · Score: 3, Funny

      Google plus sucks. Not nearly as bad as Facebook, but it still sucks.

      If you want a real social network you can always go old school - get out of the house and make some friends.

      --
      Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
    2. Re:Google+ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      G+ is awesome. No friends use it so I get to see interesting stuff and no stupid friends drama.
      I do agree get out of the house and hang out is the best social networking.

    3. Re:Google+ by Flytrap · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even Google has to obey the law in India.

      If Google, Facebook or any other company doing business in India, Germany, Sudan, Britain or any other country for that matter, does not like the laws in that country, then they can take the moral high-ground, as Google did in China, and leave... even if it costs them dearly in future revenue growth.

      A victory in a US court for Sikhs For Justice will remain a hollow victory because it would be unenforceable outside the jurisdiction of that US court (unless Facebook is willing to be in contempt of an Indian court order - which will be fully enforceable in India). What Sikhs For Justice should be doing is applying pressure on Facebook to pull out of India in protest over Indian censorship... then a local social network site will take its place just as happened to Google in China.

    4. Re:Google+ by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More to the point, can a US court force Facebook to provide a service they do not want to provide and have no contract to provide?

    5. Re:Google+ by synaptik · · Score: 2

      Aren't friends the whole point of social media?

      No. Friends are the point of Facebook specifically, but not social media generally. The point of G+ is to find people who are a source of material that you find interesting. ... Those people may become friends to one degree or another after that, but they start out as strangers.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    6. Re:Google+ by gameboyhippo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends. I use Facebook for keeping up with friends, family, and community issues. With Google+ I use it to promote my public professional persona. So it's kinda like a public Facebook with less drama.

    7. Re:Google+ by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Even Google has to obey the law in India

      Yes. That's why the solution to their problem is called "running your own website". Suing Facebook to deliberately drop them between a rock and a hard place is an asshat move that will accomplish nothing except making lawyers a bit richer.

      Ye gods. Are these people really incapable of hiring a web designer?

    8. Re:Google+ by lgw · · Score: 2

      What service are they forcing anyone to provide, really?

      Forcing people to provide services to gay marriage even when that goes against their religious convictions is big in the states now. There was a florist in WA who declined to take to business for a gay wedding, instead referring the couple to a list of other florists. WA shut down her business and bankrupted her personal assets. A GoFundMe campaign was started to help her out, but the GoFundMe cancelled it at a whim. (Note that Islamic businesses also commonly refuse to provide services for gay weddings, but everyone leaves them alone - it's specifically the Christians who are the new unpeople).

      There are many examples like the above across the states right now.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  2. Hmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Rules framed in 2011 around Indiaâ(TM)s Information Technology Act allow the government to order intermediaries like network service providers to remove objectionable content, including material that is seen by officials as threatening the integrity, defense, security or sovereignty of the country.

    So, ignoring that the Indian government can be fairly arbitrary and capricious ... can you sue Facebook in a US court to demand that Facebook potentially goes against the law in India?

    Because I'm pretty sure a US court has no legal jurisdiction to say a damned thing about WTF Facebook does in India.

    Sorry, but once Blackberry helped get the access to communications, this precedent was set. And I'm fairly sure there's not a damned thing the US can do about it.

    I'm not saying the banning of the Sikh pages makes any sense. I just don't think there is any jurisdiction here.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The US could always offer some FREEDOM to India. 'Murica! Yeah!

    2. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Basically they can sue facebook in the united states and win but the page will still be blocked in india, its a get rich 101 scheme

    3. Re:Hmmm .... by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2

      Because I'm pretty sure a US court has no legal jurisdiction to say a damned thing about WTF Facebook does in India.

      That has not stopped judges from doing that in a number of occations. Telling companies in the US what they can and not can do in foreign countries.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    4. Re:Hmmm .... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because I'm pretty sure a US court has no legal jurisdiction to say a damned thing about WTF Facebook does in India.

      Facebook is an American company. If you are a person or company based in the US or with an office or presence in the US, then the US claims jurisdiction over your worldwide activities.

      Companies and individuals can and have been penalized for activities overseas.

      For starters, if you earn income in another country, then you will be taxed on it in the US, with a credit offered only for taxes paid in the other country.

      You can be sued under US law for activities against US law undertaken in another country.

      HOWEVER, Facebook has 1st amendment rights, and therefore, it is perfectly within its rights to block any page it wants based on content.

      You don't have a civil right to post whatever you want on Facebook, and for Facebook to display your posting.

      They can apply social network based limitations on who can see it, they can apply regional limitations on who can see it, or they can delete/block the content altogether.

      And it's Facebook's constitutional 1st amendment free speech right to do so, and control what messages they send, as this reflects on their company.

      The lawsuit is a frivolous charge.

    5. Re:Hmmm .... by antiperimetaparalogo · · Score: 2

      I also don't think that a US court justice has any jurisdiction in India, BUT i am not so sure that suing Facebook (an American company) in a US court to demand that Facebook potentially goes against the law in India is illogical, since any American company must follow US laws - this does not mean that what Facebook did is against any US law (from what i know - i am Greek), nor that an American company can not follow India's laws when does business in India... it just means that if India's laws demand to sacrifice a human baby in order to do business in India and facebook do it (even if the baby is Indian, and the sacrifice is done in India!), i don't find it so illogical for US justice to intervene.
      I am not a lawyer, so this is more of a question to anyone with more knowledge about the issue.

      --
      Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
    6. Re:Hmmm .... by mi · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying the banning of the Sikh pages makes any sense. I just don't think there is any jurisdiction here.

      It raises the stink, which may push FB to reconsider this or related decisions.

      Ukrainians should do the same because Facebook — its "Ukrainian" office located in Russia — regularly shuts down pro-Ukrainian pages, while leaving the openly hateful and violence-threatening pro-Russian ones running... Whether it is evidence of the employees' bias, or simply a factor of there being too many Russian-bots filing automated complaints 24x7, a lawsuit filed by Ukrainians in the US might help...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Hmmm .... by skr95062 · · Score: 2

      Yep... Just ask Microsoft about the Justice Department getting the US COURTS to tell them they have to violate EU law and hand over a EU citizen's email stored on a server in Ireland.

    8. Re:Hmmm .... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      US courts are not constrained by laws of a foreign country, just as foreign courts are not constrained by US laws - when a US court rules within the boundaries of US law, whether or not that ruling would cause a company or person to violate a foreign law should not come into consideration. It may put the company or person in a difficult position, but that's not should not be the concern of the court.

    9. Re:Hmmm .... by bws111 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not even close to the same thing. Facebook is not rejecting people because they are Sikh, they are rejecting the content. Can a Sikh post on Facebook? Yes. If a non-Sikh posted the exact same thing would it get rejected? Yes.

      There is no muddiness at all. If you reject something because of some characteristic of the PERSON who said you MAY run afoul of anti-discrimination laws. If you reject something because of what the CONTENT is that is 100% freedom of expression.

    10. Re:Hmmm .... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      So a newspaper can refuse to run classified ads from a particular race or religion?

      The newspaper can refuse to run a Pro-Muslim/Anti-Muslim, Pro-Christian, Anti-Christian, or Pro-Canadian advertisement based on the content of the ad; they can reject ads saying things positive or negative about a particular race or religion based on the content of the ad.

      The newspaper cannot refuse to run an ad based on the race or religion of the person paying for the ad or requesting its placement.

      In other words: they can discriminate against or in favor of any message they want.

      As a provider of services accomadating the public, they are not allowed to discriminate based on protected traits of the individual applying to list an ad.

    11. Re:Hmmm .... by msobkow · · Score: 2

      More to the point, there innumerable trade agreements between nations that mandate that foreign companies follow local legislation while doing business with their communities. The Sikhs would have to win in an *Indian* court for the case to have *any* impact or jurisdiction on the situation.

      You flat out can NOT dictate that a company break a foreign country's laws. You can dictate that they're not allowed to do business *at* *all* in that country, but you can't force them to break the law.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  3. They should lose. by jcr · · Score: 2

    The right to free speech doesn't include a right to compel anyone else to help you publish. FB has every right to pick and choose what links they put on their site.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  4. Interoperability with your own website by tepples · · Score: 2

    That's why the solution to their problem is called "running your own website".

    If you want "your own website" to interoperate with Facebook login and Facebook social graph, "your own website" still has to play by Facebook's rules.

    1. Re:Interoperability with your own website by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2

      Yeah, that goes without saying. But is it so essential to them to count likes, that they're willing to initiate legal action over it? Surely that should be the last resort.

  5. Standing is a procedural hurdle by tepples · · Score: 2

    Civil case here, you can first find somebody with standing and then proceed to sue anybody over anything.

  6. Re:US Civil Rights Act of 1964 by david_thornley · · Score: 2

    If it's blocked specifically because it's illegal in India, that's not Facebook practicing religious discrimination.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  7. Re:Ex patirates cause lots of trouble by Magnus+Pym · · Score: 2

    Exactly. Expatriate Sikhs, especially those based in Canada & the US, are the equivalent of 1st generation Cubans in Florida who collaborated with the CIA and tried to overthrow Castro, or the New York Irish Catholic folks who funded most of the `troubles' on the old country in the 70s & 80s. These guys may have their grievances, but the shrillness of their current efforts and the veracity of their message is completely divorced from reality and their causes are not in line with US interests. They are not heroes struggling with oppression, they are middle aged or older rich `Colonel Blimps', trying to find meaning in their boring & pointless lives by fighting yesterdays' wars and fomenting trouble in the lands they have abandoned.