4 ms·

France's attempt to censor Google is an act of aggression against Google and all of its users. So, you are wrong. The cynical thing is for France to aggress aga

by javert 11y ago

France's attempt to censor Google is an act of aggression against Google and all of its users. So, you are wrong. The cynical thing is for France to aggress against the entire free world.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>France's attempt to censor Google is an act of aggression against Google and all of its users. Just to be clear, the argument here is that censoring Google is an act of aggression against Google and all of its users regardless of what is being censored. So forcing Google to censor illegal material would be beholden to this argument as well?
- javert 11y ago
  The only thing you can't do is aggress against other people. Google has the right to spread whatever it wants as long as it is not aggressing against other people in doing it.
  - fit2rule 11y ago
    If I'm French, and I want to be forgotten, then Google should forget me. If I'm American, and want to look at the life of my French friend - and can do so only because I'm not in France but rather in America - then why is it acceptable for Google to say "okay your friend is forgotten: only in France - here is the stuff they didn't want you to know". Again this is is just cynical flaunting of sovereignty on Googles' part, and another example of a supra-national entity lauding its power over democratic governments.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  You kinda touched on the problem. Illegal according to who's laws?
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Per the laws of where ever it has offices at. If it has a US office, it has to follow US law, even when the US law applies to behavior outside the US. If they do not, they face the penalty. For an example, consider sex tourism laws where a given act may be legal both in the US and in some other country, but leaving the US, going to the other country, and doing that act is still illegal in the US, and the US will prosecute you for it. As a business grows larger and sets up multiple offices in many countries, this can make things quite complex. Now, as to the original point, Google is required by many nations to censor certain material regardless of if that information only is kept in servers in some other country. Are these laws an act of aggression against Google? (Ignore for a second that Google would likely choose to censor most of that material anyways due to the negative publicity in not doing so, similar to reddit's banning of borderline legal subreddits not because the law, as they were borderline legal, but due to publicity.)
    - DanBC 11y ago
      > or an example, consider sex tourism laws where a given act may be legal both in the US and in some other country, but leaving the US, going to the other country, and doing that act is still illegal in the US, and the US will prosecute you for it. Do you have a cite for that please? As I understand it the "sex tourism" laws cover behaviour that is not legal in the US, but is legal in some other country. If a US citizen travels to that other country they're still breaking US law, even though they're not in the US and even though that activity is legal in the country they're visiting. Also, for some activities, the travelling US citizen will face justice in the US for some crimes no matter what the legal status of that activity is.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        >As I understand it the "sex tourism" laws cover behaviour that is not legal in the US, but is legal in some other country. Well, in the best example, it is a bit complicated. Take age of consent. Within a state, state law rules. Between states, federal law rules. In most cases, federal law is stricter than state law. So it would be an action that would be legal in the state you were a resident of, but not in another state. Also a counter example. Prostitution is illegal in most states, but it is, to a limited extent, legal for an American to engage in such abroad (much like it is legal for residents of Texas to go to Nevada). In short, I believe there are laws that do what I describe and laws that do what you describe. (Note I'm not a lawyer and the laws have changed a bit since I last read them.)

by javert 11y ago

France's attempt to censor Google is an act of aggression against Google and all of its users. So, you are wrong. The cynical thing is for France to aggress against the entire free world.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>France's attempt to censor Google is an act of aggression against Google and all of its users. Just to be clear, the argument here is that censoring Google is an act of aggression against Google and all of its users regardless of what is being censored. So forcing Google to censor illegal material would be beholden to this argument as well?

javert 11y ago
The only thing you can't do is aggress against other people. Google has the right to spread whatever it wants as long as it is not aggressing against other people in doing it.
- fit2rule 11y ago
  If I'm French, and I want to be forgotten, then Google should forget me. If I'm American, and want to look at the life of my French friend - and can do so only because I'm not in France but rather in America - then why is it acceptable for Google to say "okay your friend is forgotten: only in France - here is the stuff they didn't want you to know". Again this is is just cynical flaunting of sovereignty on Googles' part, and another example of a supra-national entity lauding its power over democratic governments.
Karunamon 11y ago
You kinda touched on the problem. Illegal according to who's laws?
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Per the laws of where ever it has offices at. If it has a US office, it has to follow US law, even when the US law applies to behavior outside the US. If they do not, they face the penalty. For an example, consider sex tourism laws where a given act may be legal both in the US and in some other country, but leaving the US, going to the other country, and doing that act is still illegal in the US, and the US will prosecute you for it. As a business grows larger and sets up multiple offices in many countries, this can make things quite complex. Now, as to the original point, Google is required by many nations to censor certain material regardless of if that information only is kept in servers in some other country. Are these laws an act of aggression against Google? (Ignore for a second that Google would likely choose to censor most of that material anyways due to the negative publicity in not doing so, similar to reddit's banning of borderline legal subreddits not because the law, as they were borderline legal, but due to publicity.)
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > or an example, consider sex tourism laws where a given act may be legal both in the US and in some other country, but leaving the US, going to the other country, and doing that act is still illegal in the US, and the US will prosecute you for it. Do you have a cite for that please? As I understand it the "sex tourism" laws cover behaviour that is not legal in the US, but is legal in some other country. If a US citizen travels to that other country they're still breaking US law, even though they're not in the US and even though that activity is legal in the country they're visiting. Also, for some activities, the travelling US citizen will face justice in the US for some crimes no matter what the legal status of that activity is.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      >As I understand it the "sex tourism" laws cover behaviour that is not legal in the US, but is legal in some other country. Well, in the best example, it is a bit complicated. Take age of consent. Within a state, state law rules. Between states, federal law rules. In most cases, federal law is stricter than state law. So it would be an action that would be legal in the state you were a resident of, but not in another state. Also a counter example. Prostitution is illegal in most states, but it is, to a limited extent, legal for an American to engage in such abroad (much like it is legal for residents of Texas to go to Nevada). In short, I believe there are laws that do what I describe and laws that do what you describe. (Note I'm not a lawyer and the laws have changed a bit since I last read them.)