11–20 of 81 posts
Both notions are related, but clearly not the same.
Canada has already had court ruling forcing Google to delete pages globally (not just the Canada domain). So why not Europe?
Serious question, how can Canada force Google to do something globally?
While those who are fans of international corporations (for some reason), seem to think that these global megacorps should be above the law, having to answer to no country's authority, the reality is, a global corporation is beholden to follow the law of every country it operates in. And hence, if Canada tells Google to do something internationally, Google can either choose to comply, or not do business in Canada.
You can see a similar effect in how the US imposes bans on operating in some countries. If a company wants to do business in the US, it has to obey the US's bans on doing business with North Korea or Iran or what have you. Since so much global business includes US products or needs the US market, our bans have to be followed by more than just folks who live here in the US. If you recall the whole issue with ZTE being effectively shut down over a US ban because they dealt with Iran, you can see how a US law can shut down a Chinese company for doing business with a completely different country.
A country can define the conditions for doing business there as whatever it wants, and can impose any level of punishment that it can manage to enforce on a company that doesn't comply. That's sovereignty, and all countries have it.
Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world, it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment. Both notions are related, but clearly not the same.
Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world, it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment. Both notions are related, but clearly not the same.
I always like to remind people that China has constitutionally protected "free speech". Saying you guarantee your citizens freedom of speech doesn't mean that freedom of speech is actually meaningful.
This isn't about libel: it's about criminals and wrongdoers wanting the Internet to be wiped clean of evidence of their crimes or wrongdoing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always like to remind people that China has constitutionally protected "free speech". Saying you guarantee your citizens freedom of speech doesn't mean that freedom of speech is actually meaningful.
[flagged]
Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world, it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment. Both notions are related, but clearly not the same.
Not good. Most of the western world doesn't have free speech.
> it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment.
It isn't an "expansive" interpretation. It's the definition of free speech.
Your "western democracies" have the same understanding of free speech as saudi arabia, russia and china does ( aka "you are free to say things only we approve of" ). That's not free speech by any definition.
Besides, when it comes to things like free speech or human rights, one should err on the side of too much free speech or human rights rather than less.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always like to remind people that China has constitutionally protected "free speech". Saying you guarantee your citizens freedom of speech doesn't mean that freedom of speech is actually meaningful.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fight over that isn't over yet. https://www.thestar.com/business/2017/11/03/canadas-top-cour...
This is still an insane ruling by the U.S. that has no reasonable force of law. The top court of Canada, the highest judiciary entity, has said that the results must be delisted. Nobody can overrule the Canadian court's ruling on this, especially not an American court. In order to be in compliance with Canadian law, the results must be delisted, and as a company operating in Canada, Google must comply with Canadian l…
Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world, it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment. Both notions are related, but clearly not the same.
> Good. Because it doesn't threaten Free Speech as understood by virtually all democracies in the Western world Not good. Most of the western world doesn't have free speech. > it merely threatens the extremely expansive interpretation of Free Speech in America's First Amendment. It isn't an "expansive" interpretation. It's the definition of free speech. Your "western democracies" have the same understanding of free s…
You can't err on the side of both of them, so what do you do? You have to balance them, which is something that the European courts have been doing for a long time now.