3 ms·
I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about jurisdiction going on in this thread, purely from the perspective of international law. As a matter of sovereign
by thimabi 2y ago
I’d like to clear up some misconceptions about jurisdiction going on in this thread, purely from the perspective of international law.
As a matter of sovereignty, a state can exercise judicial jurisdiction over its territory, over its nationals, over national security concerns and over the most grave crimes.
A state’s jurisdiction can apply even to foreign people/companies who have no presence in said state at all. What the state’s courts can’t do is enforce their decisions abroad.
I know nothing about Indian law, but I know it has the right to set its own judicial jurisdiction. Accordingly, it can surely grant courts the power to order worldwide content bans. The real questions at stake in this case are:
1) does Wikipedia have any presence in India, so that Indian courts can compel it to follow their orders?
2) which countries where Wikipedia operates are able to receive requests from Indian courts and take enforcement action based on them?
It might not be fair, or right, but that’s the way it is. Thankfully, the obstacles to enforcing absurd orders abroad are usually high enough that they discourage said orders, or render them ineffective.
- tomrod 2y agoIt's not the way it is, unless people accept it as such. Sorry, but VPNs exist, Wikipedia is inherently clonable and downloadable. Silicon rock beats Indian paper courts, any way you slice it, unless Wikipedia chooses to back down. They shouldn't.
- thimabi 2y agoI agree that the decision is wrong and unfair, and that it can be easily circumvented. That does not negate India’s right to legislate as it wants, nor does it prevent the Indian government from repressing citizens who choose to defy the law. It’s very unfortunate, but there is more to this case than simply negating a country’s jurisdiction or encouraging nationals to challenge it.
- marcus_holmes 2y agoCue an Australian Prime Minister saying "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" [0]. Yes, India can make ridiculous unenforceable laws, same as any country, but that doesn't actually do anything: Laws only matter when they can be enforced. In this case India trying to enforce a worldwide ban on this story is clearly unenforceable. And because of VPNs that means that enforcing a national ban on this story is clearly unfeasible. However, because the people who make the laws are ignorant of the technical reasons why it's unfeasible they'll carry on and do it anyway. The Australian PM was in the same boat, made the same mistake, and was widely ridiculed for it. [0] https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathematics-dont-apply-here-says-australian-pm/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
- thimabi 2y agoI wouldn’t say this specific order is “clearly unenforceable” — after all, Wikipedia did remove what it was asked to remove globally, at least for now, didn’t it? Yes, people can use VPNs to circumvent the order if the banned content is available elsewhere. But the law and judicial orders do more than just attempt to constrain behaviors. Legally, those within the reach of India’s enforcement jurisdiction can be punished for disobeying the order. And since we’re all discussing things from a practical standpoint as well, we should keep in mind that states often uphold their interests abroad — even illegally. See the recent diplomatic row involving India and Canada, for instance. I insist: both in legal and in practical terms, there is more to this case.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago> prevent the Indian government from repressing citizens who choose to defy the law This is why it is so important to spread the knowledge of how to make IEDs.
- bsimpson 2y agoFor reasons nobody understands, paper beats rock.
- ruthmarx 2y agoOrganizations like Wikipedia need to make sure they have no satellite offices, and just completely independent affiliates with sharing agreements. That way when a silly court tries to ban something worldwide they can be rebuked.