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.

10 of 100 comments (clear)

  1. 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: 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

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

  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.