6 ms·
This involves an interesting difference in the British parliamentary system of absolute parliamentary supremacy compared to the American principle of separation
by throwaway2048 8y ago
This involves an interesting difference in the British parliamentary system of absolute parliamentary supremacy compared to the American principle of separation of powers. Basically they can pass a law that does anything, including ones for the start of investigation, the filing of criminal charges, and the seizure of evidence and assets. Facebook was very stupid to make a weak excuse of being tied up with legal process in an American court as the reason they refused to cooperate, because in the end the UK parliament can compel anything they want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty
- TheOtherHobbes 8y agoSending a Sergeant-at-Arms in person is the British diplomatic equivalent of parking tanks on your lawn. It's almost literally unprecedented, and is a signal that Parliament is very, very angry about this,
- CaptainZapp 8y agoWhat I thought is ironic as hell is Zuckerberg's (or the company's lawyers) attitude that England anyway has no jurisdiction and they can't be compelled to produce him, or even answer questions in an honest way. Fast forward: A California court has zero jurisdiction over the English parliament. About the funniest is the following statement by a Facebook spokesperson: “The materials obtained by the DCMS committee are subject to a protective order of the San Mateo Superior Court restricting their disclosure. We have asked the DCMS committee to refrain from reviewing them and to return them to counsel or to Facebook. We have no further comment.” I dare say that the fucks that Mr. Collins gives on the order of the San Mateo Superior Court can be counted with zero hands. Yeah, Mark; Karma really is a bitch.