You mean like the supposedly unconscionable forced arbitration clauses? The ones that the Supreme Court just ruled are valid?
When everyone requires that you sign all your rights away as a matter of course, what rights do we have left? To to live in the woods somewhere and never interact with another human being.
The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot abridge your freedom of speech, it says nothing about voluntarily giving it up in a private contract.
If we're going to treat corporations as individuals, it would be nice to see the death penalty applied once in a while. Lord know some companies deserve it.
Excuse me. For all intents and purposes in a Chinese court it might as well be legal.
Re:Anyone can sue anyone, merit is not required
on
Falun Gong Sues Cisco
·
· Score: 1
US presidents get to appoint federal judges. The only check on that is the appointment challenge by the senate. But if the president and the party that controls the senate both favor expanded government power then it's remarkably easy to find a judge that will also favor expanded government power.
Re:Anyone can sue anyone, merit is not required
on
Falun Gong Sues Cisco
·
· Score: 1
Cisco is a US company and can be sued in US courts. China is not and can not be sued in a US court. That's why they're suing Cisco. I don't know what law they hope to prove that Cisco broke, that's what I'd like to know.
The allegation that I gathered from the summary is that Cisco was hired by China specifically for the purpose of persecuting the Falun Gong, not that China happened to use some Cisco product that China purchased with no questions asked.
Re:Anyone can sue anyone, merit is not required
on
Falun Gong Sues Cisco
·
· Score: 1
"They're often ignored."
Exactly. It is as futile to sue the Chinese government in China as it is in the US.
So what US laws might Cisco be violating? That's what I'm wondering.
Re:Anyone can sue anyone, merit is not required
on
Falun Gong Sues Cisco
·
· Score: 1
I'm not saying that what China does is moral or right, merely that attempting to sue China is futile. I'm just wondering whether this suit has a chance of succeeding.
The services described on the webpage you referenced do not come close to resembling the alleged activities quoted above. That undermines the argument that Cisco sells this sort of thing to just anybody without knowledge of what is done with it.
And of course Cisco is denying all allegations. Would anyone expect anyone less? I'm not saying Cisco is obviously guilty, I'm saying the case and the allegation is more than just "families of gun violence victims are suing gun manufacturers", because the allegation is that Cisco is complicit with full knowledge of the purpose of their collaboration. Clearly you don't think they are, and that's fine - Cisco could be completely innocent - but that will be for the courts to decide.
They are absolutely greedy enough, their investors expect nothing less. As for stupid, this is just the opposite. The Chinese government is a huge, *huge* client, and Cisco stands to make massive amounts of money if it impresses the Chinese govt with their performance of this contract.
Unfortunately, business is just set up to be nearly completely amoral (not immoral, though that is often the result.) The idea that markets will always result in the best, and most moral results is a fantasy.
Re:Related lawsuit filed against second U.S. corp.
on
Falun Gong Sues Cisco
·
· Score: 1
Except that Ford accepted a special order from China to design, manufacture, and operate vehicles specifically for the persecution of Falun Gong members. So yeah, in that way the analogy would work.
If that is the case then when can any behavior ever be attributed to a corporation rather than its employees? Since all corporations are comprised of people, this argument can be used to absolve every corporation of everything ever.
Whatever the Chinese gov't does in China is legal. By definition, considering the type of government they have. Does the US even have any laws that prohibit US companies from participating in such oppression? I think that would determine whether this case has any merit to begin with.
Whatever the Chinese gov't does in China is legal. By definition, considering the type of government they have. Does the US even have any laws that prohibit US companies from participating in such oppression?
The summary and the article both make it pretty clear that Cisco's complicity goes beyond just setting up a surveillance net.
"Cisco Systems designed a surveillance system to help the Chinese government track and ultimately suppress members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, according to a lawsuit the group filed against the network equipment maker.
"The lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, alleges Cisco supplied and helped maintain a surveillance system known as the 'Golden Shield' that allowed the Chinese government to track and censor the group's Internet activities.
"The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleges that Golden Shield--described in Cisco marketing materials as Policenet--resulted in the arrest of as many as 5,000 Falun Gong members. Cisco "competed aggressively" for the contracts to design the Golden Shield system "with full knowledge that it was to be used for the suppression of the Falun Gong religion," according to the lawsuit."
This is not to say that the case has any merit, but just to point out that the lawsuit is not the same thing as "families of murder victims suing gun manufactors (sic)".
Also, you missed the critical part of the summary that was even helpfully underlined and hyperlinked for you. They plaintiffs allege that Cisco was contracted for the specific purpose of committing the persecutions, it even had a name. So no, it isn't like a kitchen knife maker being sued, it's more like the guy driving the getaway car being prosecuted, even though he never even stepped in the bank that was robbed.
How could China possibly be held liable? Everything the Chinese gov't does within their own borders is basically legal by definition. What can a US judge do to them? For all they care you might as well be suing Mother Nature. Cisco, on the other hand, is a US company and may be in violation of laws prohibiting certain activities overseas (if such laws exist, I've no idea) and more importantly, they can actually be tried and held liable here, unlike the Chinese.
It is pretty different. The suit alleges that Cisco was actively complicit in the persecution of the Falun Gong. It wasn't like the Chinese gov't bought a bunch of their product made for general use and Cisco had no idea what it was going to be used for.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that we keep planting them anyway.
"the US has been at war with Iran since 1979."
Except for that time in the 80s when we were selling them weapons, right?
Tell that to Serbia.
International law is enforced, just against the "lesser" countries, not against the US or Israel.
You mean like the supposedly unconscionable forced arbitration clauses? The ones that the Supreme Court just ruled are valid?
When everyone requires that you sign all your rights away as a matter of course, what rights do we have left? To to live in the woods somewhere and never interact with another human being.
The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot abridge your freedom of speech, it says nothing about voluntarily giving it up in a private contract.
At least they will be able to put on the box "Most anticipated game in the history of ever!"
Two-party rule is better than one-party rule by only the slimmest of possible margins, and results in tyranny only slightly more slowly.
If we're going to treat corporations as individuals, it would be nice to see the death penalty applied once in a while. Lord know some companies deserve it.
Excuse me. For all intents and purposes in a Chinese court it might as well be legal.
US presidents get to appoint federal judges. The only check on that is the appointment challenge by the senate. But if the president and the party that controls the senate both favor expanded government power then it's remarkably easy to find a judge that will also favor expanded government power.
Cisco is a US company and can be sued in US courts. China is not and can not be sued in a US court. That's why they're suing Cisco. I don't know what law they hope to prove that Cisco broke, that's what I'd like to know.
The allegation that I gathered from the summary is that Cisco was hired by China specifically for the purpose of persecuting the Falun Gong, not that China happened to use some Cisco product that China purchased with no questions asked.
"They're often ignored."
Exactly. It is as futile to sue the Chinese government in China as it is in the US.
So what US laws might Cisco be violating? That's what I'm wondering.
I'm not saying that what China does is moral or right, merely that attempting to sue China is futile. I'm just wondering whether this suit has a chance of succeeding.
2. Wow, I have no idea how I managed to get that wrong for so long! Thanks.
The services described on the webpage you referenced do not come close to resembling the alleged activities quoted above. That undermines the argument that Cisco sells this sort of thing to just anybody without knowledge of what is done with it.
And of course Cisco is denying all allegations. Would anyone expect anyone less? I'm not saying Cisco is obviously guilty, I'm saying the case and the allegation is more than just "families of gun violence victims are suing gun manufacturers", because the allegation is that Cisco is complicit with full knowledge of the purpose of their collaboration. Clearly you don't think they are, and that's fine - Cisco could be completely innocent - but that will be for the courts to decide.
They are absolutely greedy enough, their investors expect nothing less. As for stupid, this is just the opposite. The Chinese government is a huge, *huge* client, and Cisco stands to make massive amounts of money if it impresses the Chinese govt with their performance of this contract.
Unfortunately, business is just set up to be nearly completely amoral (not immoral, though that is often the result.) The idea that markets will always result in the best, and most moral results is a fantasy.
Except that Ford accepted a special order from China to design, manufacture, and operate vehicles specifically for the persecution of Falun Gong members. So yeah, in that way the analogy would work.
If that is the case then when can any behavior ever be attributed to a corporation rather than its employees? Since all corporations are comprised of people, this argument can be used to absolve every corporation of everything ever.
Whatever the Chinese gov't does in China is legal. By definition, considering the type of government they have. Does the US even have any laws that prohibit US companies from participating in such oppression? I think that would determine whether this case has any merit to begin with.
Whatever the Chinese gov't does in China is legal. By definition, considering the type of government they have. Does the US even have any laws that prohibit US companies from participating in such oppression?
The summary and the article both make it pretty clear that Cisco's complicity goes beyond just setting up a surveillance net.
"Cisco Systems designed a surveillance system to help the Chinese government track and ultimately suppress members of the Falun Gong spiritual movement, according to a lawsuit the group filed against the network equipment maker.
"The lawsuit, which was filed Thursday in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, alleges Cisco supplied and helped maintain a surveillance system known as the 'Golden Shield' that allowed the Chinese government to track and censor the group's Internet activities.
"The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, alleges that Golden Shield--described in Cisco marketing materials as Policenet--resulted in the arrest of as many as 5,000 Falun Gong members. Cisco "competed aggressively" for the contracts to design the Golden Shield system "with full knowledge that it was to be used for the suppression of the Falun Gong religion," according to the lawsuit."
This is not to say that the case has any merit, but just to point out that the lawsuit is not the same thing as "families of murder victims suing gun manufactors (sic)".
Also, you missed the critical part of the summary that was even helpfully underlined and hyperlinked for you. They plaintiffs allege that Cisco was contracted for the specific purpose of committing the persecutions, it even had a name. So no, it isn't like a kitchen knife maker being sued, it's more like the guy driving the getaway car being prosecuted, even though he never even stepped in the bank that was robbed.
How could China possibly be held liable? Everything the Chinese gov't does within their own borders is basically legal by definition. What can a US judge do to them? For all they care you might as well be suing Mother Nature. Cisco, on the other hand, is a US company and may be in violation of laws prohibiting certain activities overseas (if such laws exist, I've no idea) and more importantly, they can actually be tried and held liable here, unlike the Chinese.
It is pretty different. The suit alleges that Cisco was actively complicit in the persecution of the Falun Gong. It wasn't like the Chinese gov't bought a bunch of their product made for general use and Cisco had no idea what it was going to be used for.