Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

More on the Hague Convention 176

Posted by michael from the one-world-government dept.
RadioheadKid writes: "An article at Cnet news discusses the implications of the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Foreign Judgments. According to Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, "People don't realize what a disaster this could be." It appears that the treaty may not make it to ratification, but "we can't assume it will die of its own accord," Stallman said. "We have to stop it." One of the examples of the implications of this treaty is US based web sites having to comply with the narrow laws of countries like China or Morocco." Quite an informative article about the current state of the treaty. CPT has a set of pages with lots of background information on the treaty.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More on the Hague Convention More

More on the Hague Convention

Comments Filter:

  • Re:US censorship more probable (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Or Europe based web sites having to comply with the narrow laws (concerning e.g. nudity, drugs, or cryptography) of hyporcrite US.
    Yeah! You have to be a hella 133t h4x0r to find nudity [ninenine.com], drugs [tripod.com], or cryptography [cryptography.com] here in hypocrUSAy [silicon.com].
  • Well, since the Star Trek shows were basically stories about what amounts to the 23th century military, the complaint boils down to an issue with the Navy wearing uniforms while on board the ship.


    ...phil

  • It's a legitimate question, I don't know why it would be modded down.

    Seriously, if any corporate freedoms were threatened, do you think the treaty would stand a chance? Look at Kyoto and what appears to be happening under the current administration.

  • ... At least in Portugal. Sunday, on the train, I talked for hours with a small group of people on my wagon, and I went from Free Software to Copyrights, and they either took me for a lunatic or an illuminated person and were convinced of what was happening. I believe the later happened, fourtunately.

    That's all you have to do... even if it doesn't make the news... read the FSF papers, be informed and above all, INFORM your people. Most aren't even aware of what's happening. If each of us talks (and convinces) one or two people from time to time, and not bitching about how bad it is on /., eventually we will make the world a better place than it is.

    I'd like to thank Richard Stallman, and the other spokesmen of the FSF, for it was by reading their texts and by listeing to the ogg/vorbis on the site that I was able to argue with those who heard me, with lead weight arguments able to convince anyone who might care even if for a little.

    Hugs, Cyke
  • Personally I'd rather give my money to the EFF than the FSF. They're working now to counter the DMCA and other such claptrap. I think the FSF carries too much baggage and fewer people would be willing to contribute due to some of Mr. Stallman's positions and rhetoric. It's a broader platform than just the GPL.
  • Just hope they actually realize the extent of it. We didn't join the World Court because congress-critters were afraid our soldiers (or Henry Kissinger?) might be declared a war criminal.
  • i know what else I would call H Kissinger:

    war criminal.

    can't wait to see the fallout over what he did to keep Pinochet in power.

    Down with empire!
  • The main thing is that the judgments, which will include both money judgments and "protective measures" (read injunctions), are enforceable in *any* signature member country. There is a public policy exception, Article 28(f), But someone can sue your ISP, so if the ISP has foreign assets, as most of the big ones do, you have to try to get a judge to invole the public policy exception outside the USA, which is very difficult. Jamie
  • Last time I checked, the Hague is still having problems enforcing their laws that are already on the books (one of which pertains to war crimes and the other on human rights). If they cannot show the strength to enfore what they already have, then what's the point of them attempting to enter into a realm that has yet to be tamed, even by the United States government w.r.t. the failed piece of legislation called the CDA of 1996?

  • So it's OK to ban speech about Nazis in Europe, then, because at least you're not hypocrites? Good for you!

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

  • I'm as much terrified of what I see as insane and dangerous laws about freedom of speech, bearing arms, etc. being forced upon the UK (/EU) as I am of having to obey the DMCA.

    What Britons usually miss about American freedoms is that Americans generally see them as the inalienable rights of citizens, enshrined in our constitution. Britons have a hard time with this because they're subjects, not citizens and they don't have a constitution.

    If you don't believe this is true, remember that we fought a war in the last part of the 18th century over these very issues.

    In the eyes of Americans we cannot impose the inalienable rights that have been vested in you by your creartor. You already have them, they've just been taken away from you by the tyranny of your monarchy and parliament.

  • Sure they were nutso sayin gthe barcodes on street signs were UN codes for troop directions

    which street signs are these? US street signs?
  • What You Should Know [cptech.org]:

    2. So long as these jurisdiction rules are followed, every country agrees to enforce nearly all of the member country judgments and injunctive orders, subject only to a narrow exception for judgments that are "manifestly incompatible with public policy," or to specific treaty exceptions, such as the one for certain antitrust claims.

    Okay...So I would say that most of the "narrow laws of china or morroco" would be "manifestly incompatible with public policy"... Problem Solved! With this in there I don't see what the big deal is.
  • Chinese culture, on the other hand, is the oldest culture in existance and has existed, in one form or another, for 2,000 years.

    Hey man, learn your history. Even ignoring people like Egyptians, Jewish culture certainly existed for much more than 2000 years. For Chrissakes, Christianity is 2000 years old!

    Kaa
  • Let me preface this by saying I know probably much less about the UK gov't than you do the US.

    But it seems there is one bit you missed about the United States federal government: it is based on the concept of 'consent of the governed'. That is, as a group, we agreed to let a certain group of people govern us. As a group, we haven't consented to being covered by this Hague convention (neither have we not consented. We have said nothing, but giving consent requires an affirmative action.)

    Your concerns about free speech and self-defense(gun ownership) are equally as xenophobic as some of the concerns we USians have that you mock. But they are all rational, given societal differences.

    I'm not one to get all PC, but let's face it: the Brits who didn't want to be under the bootheel of some monarch rolled out for the US, Australia, etc. Those people had a different world view, as did their children, grandchildren, etc. (And yes, I like many others in the US, am at least partially decended from criminals (debtor's prison, in my instance. The Brits screwing over the Welsh miner) but that doesn't change the fact that my ancestors thought quite a bit differently than yours).

    So the correct answer is to protect your own. My opinion is that the US has NOTHING to gain by these talks. And quite a few fundamental (to us) freedoms to lose.

  • Maybe in the UK, but not here. We Americans are rather proud of the freedoms we've fought for. No our legal system is not perfect. But if you want to stir up American sentiment - tell them their right to free speech is going to be subject to some foreign judicial body. I'll pickup an M16 myself and overthrow any legal body that sells my First Amendment rights out from under me.

    Where were you when the legal bodies were dispensing with your fourth amendment rights?

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Or are you only concerned with one special part of the Constitution?

    http://www.kcstar.com/projects/drugforfeit/>http :// www.kcstar.com/projects/drugforfeit/

    http://www.free-market.net/spotlight/searches/

    http://civilliberty.about.com/newsissues/civilli be rty/library/weekly/aa052300a.htm

    "Anyone who would trade freedom for safety deserves neither." - Benjamin Franklin

  • Funny, my person, house, papers and effects are still secure and can't be searched without probable cause. The Supreme Court just extended further into the technical advances of searches saying they can't thermally image my home without a warrant either.

    Unless someone who doesn't like you calls in an anonymous tip about your rampant marijuana smoking or selling. Then we'll see how secure your stuff is.
  • Yes. And, er, one wonders how some of these dynasties ended -- the first Han dynasty, if memory serves, ended in the disintegration of the nation into disparate kingdoms ruled by warlords. Not exactly a model system...

    And who says the United States won't degenerate into the same given enough time t
  • Don't forget the US habit of kidnapping people and then trying them in US courts. How would you feel about the Chinese kidnapping you and then trying you in a Chinese court for anti-revolutionary conduct?

  • Perhaps this is a good time for those of us who read /. to consider the reality of the US system of government. Senators, congresspersons, and even presidents cannot know absolutely everything about every issue. They simply haven't the time, energy, or desire. And we can't condemn our representatives for this.

    Ignorance is not an excuse, not in our courts, anyway.

    If our elected officials don't have the energy and desire... Replace them!

  • Yep. Sadly, they'd be the same forefathers. I'm not saying they were perfect.
  • Excuse me, but did you hear me defend them for making slaves 3/5ths human? No.

    Just because I believe they were right in fighting their injustices from England, doesn't mean I condoned the enslavement of millions of people.
  • Of course, the Chinese goverment has only existed in its current form for 52 years. It may yet outlast the US government, and continue for longer.
  • You forget every congress person has their price...
  • Yes. And, er, one wonders how some of these dynasties ended -- the first Han dynasty, if memory serves, ended in the disintegration of the nation into disparate kingdoms ruled by warlords. Not exactly a model system...
  • Well, er, war criminals tend to be surrounded by well-armed henchmen, quite possibly with local sympathizers... so it's non-trivial to get ahold of them without killing them.

    Placing liens on overseas property, or simple arrest warrants (if you ever step on their shores, say), should be considerably easier.
  • Some people might appreciate a decent standard of living, good pay, a nice range of educational institutions ranging from vocational tech to top-notch research groups, and a government that isn't likely to abuse you just for ragging on officials or for refusing to bribe them. Quite a few people apparently want to enter so much that they're willing to bypass the legal procedures and sneak in illegally.
  • If I as a person break a law in China (or elsewhere) online, then the Chinese government has to convice the US government to arrest me and ship me to China so that they can try me. The US government may or may not do this depending on treaties etc. Similarly they could take me to court in a civil suit, but if a court in France decidese to fine me 100,000 euros they have very little chance of enforcing that. A French court won't be able to put a lein on my condo or otherwise do anything to me unless I'm in France (or at least the EU).

    On the other hand if a company that has offices in that country does something they have a much better chance as there is actualy stuff there they can go after, the bank acount and assets of a company.
  • In that case you could challenge it on a due proccess grounds never mind the free speach. (It might be a better place to do so actualy)

    IANAL

  • Ignorance is not an excuse, not in our courts, anyway.
    If our elected officials don't have the energy and desire... Replace them!
    I don't think it will work. Ok so we get a bunch of congress men who have a clue about this, but don't have any clue about other things (like say energy policy) which are also important. There are too many things for congresfolk to know about everything. Which is why it is so important to write to them If they get a lot of mail on something they tend to listen. This is also why a congressman who knows a lot about a few things tends to get listened to.
  • Well SSL and SSH are great if you are working on point to point communications. But if you want to put up a website that say is critical of the Chinese government, then SSL would not help. After all you probably want people to *SEE* your web site. Sure you could set it up as https, but if you are going to let anyone view it, then the Chinese government or anyone else can look at it too.
  • Well that is only true if the courts say it is. If the Hague convention falls afoul of the Bill of rights the Courts will favor the Constitution. Ofcourse they might not agree with you or me on exactly what speach is and is not protected.
  • The OneWorlders can have my laptop, my voice, and my weapons only after they have my corpse.

    Say NO to political globalization- it is tyranny with a smiling face, the EU summit and the Genoa preparations should be evidence enough.

    Say NO to the politicians that steal your money to oppress you, and keep chipping away at your freedoms. Say NO to the Eurotrash that try to tell Americans that our fundamental rights are "negotiable".

    Free speech, property rights, habeus corpus, bearing arms and trial by jury are not historical anomalies - they are the basis of human freedom.

  • The only problem is that this treaty would enforce the lowest common denominator of repressive laws. I have no problem with common international law as long as it's good law, but that sort of thing should be negotiated in public by the people of the world. We shouldn't just pick the laws we have today and suddenly enforce them worldwide.

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

  • Have you ever heard a Candaian mention their Charter of Rights and Freedoms? A Brition? Anyone from any commonwealth country? You have educated yourselves into being a bunch of obnoxious prats and the rest of us are tired of hearing it.

    Then piss off.

    Britons don't mention their Free Speech rights because they don't got 'em. There is no British Consititution, just Common Law (see, we learn stuff in our 'merican public schools). In the name of "Security" Britain's has passed many laws which would be flagrantly unconstitutional in the US.

    If something like the Hague Treaty was to become law in the US, there would be a serious uprising. Mark my words. We've got all those guns for a reason.

    -jon

  • Incriminating evidence of ANY crime, however small.

    They get a 'tip' that you've got drugs, they bust the door down, find that a friend of yours has a joint in his wallet, or that you've got a war3z copy of a program, and boom, you're arrested. If there were drugs involved, they can seize your house and everything in it.

    Your constitutional rights don't exist anymore. The courts don't give a shit and the cops are crooked. The only rights you have are the ones you can buy, hope you can bribe a judge - but without any money from your house (seized), or any other assets (frozen).

    Lip service is payed to the laws, but when the chips are down, who do you think the laws protect? You, or the people who write the laws and buy the judges?

    Don't you know that the police departments in the USA get to keep the proceeds from drug auctions. If they arrest enough "dealers" and auction their houses and cars (often without needing to waste time with a trial) they pour the funds into their departments. And you think their superiors don't reward that kind of thing?

    It's a *SLIGHT* conflict of interest.

    But, never mind, you'll call the ACLU and they'll fight the righteous fight, some judge who's a strict constitutionalist will set you free and slap the cops silly for their violations of your rights. It's a possibility. Do you play the lottery?
  • Ggreat answer. Anyone who complains about the system must be a criminal. Way to marginalize everyone.

    Maybe I simply realize that laws which allow the police to permanently seize (ie, not impound overnight) any property without a trial are bad laws.

    Sorry, but I don't expect much justice from a system where the police have often been the rented thugs for $cientology, where the courts are corrupt (2600 DeCSS) and there's no recourse again the judge, where a company can break anyone they wish simply by trumping up charges and dragging you through court until you go broke.

    I realize that this is rare and 99.9% of people won't encounter any of this. But for those who do, what good are our supposed protections if we don't force the police to respect them? If we don't remove judges who ignore them.

    We both recognize that the system has problems, rare as they may be. The difference is that I care about fixing them now, regardless of who they affect. You want to wait because they don't affect you. I think the smart thing to do is fix it now, before it affects anyone else, let alone you.

    If our system mistreats even one person, that's too many. I don't support throwing it all away because of that and picking up some new system, but I think we should keep fixing it until it's perfect. It never will be, but if we keep fixing bugs as they pop up (by recognizing them as bugs worth fixing) then we can keep it from degrading slowly.
  • The basic legal code is fairly understandable. Sure.

    Now, toss things like the DMCA and the UCITA on there. They invalidate a whole raft of preexisting law, but only maybe, if they get upheld. And parts may be upheld and other not, etc.

    It's legal to excerpt part of a book, and using a photocopier to do so is legal. Now, a book is the same, legally, as a DVD, but using a program to excerpt part of a DVD is illegal...

    Or contract law. Contracts require the seven Cs, or however it's taught these days. Compotence, Consideration, etc, etc. Basically, both parties have to intend to enter into a contract, know the details of the contract, and get something from it. If your state support shrinkwrap licenses, that's all out the window.

    I stand by my statement that the law is unknowable, to a professional, let alone a layman. Worse than that, it's contradictory. If you learn one piece, another may completely contradict it. And even if you could know it all, would a judge interpret it differently?

    And the law IS more complex than it needs to be. Every time a hot-button issue comes up, a law is passed to calm the people. (I know that's a generalization) Many things are illegal for multiple reasons and laws are still passed against them. The example I'm familiar with - Canadian gun laws... Fully-automatic anything is illegal, there are also laws banning specific fully-automatic weapons. That's redundant.

    Then there's all the obsolete stuff you'll find in joke lists, such as it being illegal for a mule to sleep in a bathtub, or to notify the police before driving into a town, so they could calm the horses...

    Laws like that are usually left on the books, because removing them is too much trouble, it's just generally accepted that nobody will enforce them. Do you want to be the person to test that? Do something 'immoral' in a small town and see if you get arrested under an unrelated charge that technically everyone is guilty of. (This happened a lot in the 60s, with the hippies and/or de-segregationists.) It's a bit off-topic, but it does illustrate a problem with a complex and partially obsolete criminal code.

    The law *is* more complex than it needs to be. If nothing else, whenever two laws intersect, someone should investigate them to see if they could be merged into one law that better covers the intent of the drafters. Similarly, we should automatically review any law after a set period of time, to see if it's still relevant (with the default being 'No').

    There is no perfect solution, but we sure could go about cleaning up the one we use.
  • Inherent in the same manner that it is inherent that humans breath air. We didn't start breathing air the day that someone wrote it in a biology text. It is the way humans are constructed.

    As written, the Constitution of the US takes the position that the rights that it enumerates exist in man. Anything that denies these is as wrong as saying that the moon is made of green cheese.

  • Actually, the US Constitution is merely an enumeration of rights that the founders thought resided in all men by nature.

    While I agree with this viewpoint (mostly) I also think that it has and does give rise to some rather foolish notions. (Go back and read about Andrew Jackson and Teddy Roosevelt for more information)

    Anyway, I'm just saying that the Constitution doesn't give us rights; it enumerates inherent rights.

  • You are absolutely right. And this is what the US Civil War was over. The war between the states was the inevitable conclusion of the Constitution, illegally passed by the Congress formed to rewrite the Articles of Confederation (is that the right term? It's been 10 years+ since US History).

    Originally, the citizen (not person, BTW) was sovereign, followed by states, with the federal government a distant third.

    Now we've flip-flopped, and, like you said, the State of Delaware doesn't really matter. (Or MD, OK, etc)

  • This treaty is just silliness that will die of its own accord if one of the implications is that USians have to abide by Chinese laws. Isn't it a crime in China to criticize the Chinese government? (if not in China, it is the law in some countries. Singapore).

    How long do you think the big media conglomerates would put up with shit like that? (And we all know who really run this country don't we?)

  • The second thing is related to sovereignty: a French court does not have jurisdiction to resolve questions of my rights unless I am within France's borders or have established some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable.

    But that all changes with the 'Net, doesn't it?

    There are already several court-cases around the world where the claim of jurisdiction is based on the argument that the act of publishing a webpage happens at the browser and not at the webserver. The consequence if that claim is valid is staggering - once you publish some material on the web, you grant any country in the world jurisdiction over you personally.

    And what about software? If someone in France download a piece of software I wrote, would that "[establish] some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable"?

    How about a listserv? Do I have to deny french citizens access to my mailinglist to avoid french jurisdiction?
  • Under the US Constitution I, as a US citizen, have certain inalienable rights pertaining to free speech (among other things).

    That is correct. As I pointed out in my last post, the government has a responsibility to protect those rights, and that responsibility supersedes treaties and agreements like Hague.

    A treaty that (may be) signed that I have had no say in can not over rule the laws I live by.

    This is where you go astray. The same constitition that grants you the aforementioned inalienable rights also defines a form of government in which your duly elected representatives may enact and enforce laws, enter into treaties, etc. on your behalf, without consulting you. "Your say" is to take the initiative in informing those representatives of your wishes, and/or vote for someone else if you feel that you are not being adequately or properly represented. The idea that you are not bound by laws to which you did not personally and explicitly consent is ridiculous.

  • Guess what, if the Hague Convention is ratified, Freedon of Speech will no longer have Constitutional force.

    Well, that would certainly be the strict constructionist view. The scary thing is that there is a possibility, however remote, that by ratifying a treaty our cherished Constitutional liberties could be obliterated. The fact that there is even a chance of this happening makes me shudder.

    But, if it helps streamline world trade, it's good, right? Somebody is making money, so hey let's pass it right away!

    - Rev.
  • Mod the parent up.

    Worse, companies have an incentive to conduct operations in Country A with dodgy laws. If a country has laws that are more business than consumer friendly, say allow consumers to enter into clickthrough contracts that make them give up rights to sue, companies want to locate there. This could cause a global legal race to the bottom, the same way we are seeing a global wage race to the bottom, and countries are outdoing each other to offer tax breaks to get business to locate there.

  • Once you realize national boundaries are swiftly dissolving, a common international law makes a lot of sense.

    Spoken like a true, center of the world, American. Ever try to immmigrate to the US, leader of this "global family" recently? Apparently not.

  • In other words, who in there right minds believes that ANY US congressman from ANY party is going to accept an international court ruling to tell an American web site to take something down?

    Sorry, but I disagree. Legislators have done stupid things from time to time. Congressmen get their direction from large companies. If the RIAA wants it, then sure enough, there will be legislators there to support it. It actually benefits the RIAA and the MPAA because then the DCMA becomes worldwide default law for all American made movies and music -- a big win.

    But for the vast majority of websites in teh US that DON'T have an international presence

    I don't know if it makes much of a difference anymore. I mean, yes in terms of law it does, but only to the extent where you set up your servers, and to which country your marketing to. But, I don't think it makes the entertainment industry execs feel any better that Americans are pirating movies off a server in Russia rather than a server in the USA.
  • New World Society

    I don't want a New World Society if it means not having the freedoms that our forefathers shed blood to gain for themselves. If anything, a New World Society should have more freedoms, not less.
    It shouldn't start dictating restrictions. A New World Society should be enumerating freedoms.

    A New World Society must at the very least be more democratic than one country's DMCA unilaterally passed and globally enforced. Otherwise, what exactly is the point of a New World Society.
  • I think this is exactly my point. Saying that legislative imperialism is bad is a good attack on this legislation. But (perhaps incorrectly) the way I read many of these attacks are 'This convention is bad, because the French are wrong to ban nazi memorabilia', or 'The rest of the world doesn't understand the importance of free speech, so we shouldn't follow their rules'. The point is that there are different ways of dealing with things. The xenophobia kicks in when people decide that the French (who probably have quite a large right to be very cautious about nazi's, etc.) should simply follow someone else's lead. Consider the Yahoo case, where a US judge is apparently going to rule whether a French court has juristiction - I very much hope he rules that they *do*, because to rule that the French have no right to deal with Nazi memorabilia in the way they feel they should really would be to claim that the US knows best, and everyone else should just tow the (Dubya) line...
  • It sounds like the laws of all member nations are logically-ANDed together to produce the most restrictive mask. I'd be interested to see what horrible combinations this would produce.

    What if one country's law explicitly requires an action, and another's law explicitly prohibits it? Probably depends on whose guns are bigger.
  • I very much hope he rules that they *do*, because to rule that the French have no right to deal with Nazi memorabilia in the way they feel they should really would be to claim that the US knows best

    Huh? From what I heard Yahoo already removed all Nazi material from their French sites, but that wasn't good enough for the French censors who are now demanding control over their American sites. I will absolutely claim that the US knows better than France what should be legal within US borders.

  • We Americans are rather proud of the freedoms we've fought for. No our legal system is not perfect. But if you want to stir up American sentiment - tell them their right to free speech is going to be subject to some foreign judicial body. I'll pickup an M16 myself and overthrow any legal body that sells my First Amendment rights out from under me.

    Good god, yes Americans are very damn pround "of the rights we've fought for". Its' actually pretty damn scary how every American child has been tought the same 5 sentences about "rights" and "free speach" and patriotism. It is truly a first class testament to the quality of your indoctrination system, oh sorry, education system that every person in the US sound like exactly the same asshole whenever a discussion like this takes place.

    Before you flame me, think about it. How much time did you spend learning about you constitution in school? How often do you here your fellow countrymen bellow on about ammendments and "free speach"? Have you ever heard a Candaian mention their Charter of Rights and Freedoms? A Brition? Anyone from any commonwealth country? You have educated yourselves into being a bunch of obnoxious prats and the rest of us are tired of hearing it.
  • Any lawyers out there? I've long been under the impression that ratified treaties are "only" considered on a part with plain old Federal statutes, and therefore any provisions of any ratified treaty that conflicts with the US constitution is null and void within the US.

    If CNET's characterization of the treaty is legit, it would still be horrible if lots of countries ratify it, but at least in the US, I believe some of its worst provisions would not apply (for example, it would not and could not give the US govt the power to shut down US-based sites that critizied China).
  • (1) You need to read more closely and place your modifiers more accurately. That clause means "anything in the (Constitution or laws) of any state". In other words, "of any state" modifies both "Constitution" and "laws". In other words, the clause is saying that ratified treaties trump any state laws or state constitutions.

    (2) I believe it is long-settled law that ratified treaties are considered to be on a part with Federal statutes -- so a ratified treaty can have the effect of repealing/amending/etc. an existing Federal law, will trump state laws/constitutions [see (1), above].

    (3) And since they are on a part with Federal laws, they are subject to the constraints of the US Constitution, and any treaty provisions ruled in conflict with the US Const are null and void within the US.
  • Actually, he just bolded the wrong parts, to try to make an argument where there is none. All that says is that the Federal Constitution, Federal Treaties, and Federal Laws trump the State's Constitution and laws.

    And since the Freedom of Speech amendment was made to the Federal Constitution, it's not going anywhere.
  • The issue of conflict with the U.S. Constitution doesn't really arise.

    Article 29(f) of the proposed treaty (1999 draft) excludes 'recognition or enforcement [that] would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the State addressed.' Such "public policy" would clearly include First Amendment rights in the USA, as explained in this set of answers [essential.org] from the cousel to the US negotiators to questions from James Love.

    The problem occurs if you (or your ISP, from their point of view) have any assets outside the USA.

    If someone gets a judgment in country A against you (or your ISP; or the discussion board) for something you posted in country B (ie the USA), they can then collect in any country C that doesn't explicitly protect your speech rights.

  • The issue of conflict with the U.S. Constitution doesn't really arise.

    Article 29(f) of the proposed treaty (1999 draft) excludes 'recognition or enforcement [that] would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the State addressed.' Such "public policy" would clearly include First Amendment rights in the USA, as explained in this set of answers [essential.org] from the cousel to the US negotiators to questions from James Love.

    But U.S. law wouldn't stop somebody collecting damages from you (or the forum owner, or the ISP) in any other third country if you (or they) had assets overseas.

  • A French court won't be able to put a lein on my condo or otherwise do anything to me unless I'm in France (or at least the EU).

    This is exactly what the Hague treaty changes.

    They could get enforcement through any court in the world, unless what you had done was explicitly allowed under the laws of that country.

  • For example, I doubt if a U.S. court would enforce a judgment from a secret, Iranian military court (where people are tried without even being allowed to be present to mount a defense or confront their accusers).

    On the other hand, other jurisdictions just might enforce such the said judgment. You had better be quite careful in which countries you keep assets overseas -- under the Hague Convention they could try to get enforcement anywhere.

  • the vast majority of websites in teh US that DON'T have an international presence

    Are you sure ?

    I would think the majority of private websites are on ISPs which do have an international presence; and many, many of the companies with sites will have international assets.

    And some of us in other countries get out and travel a bit more. We would quite like the Hague treaty fixed too, please.

  • One would think that SSL and SSH would be good ways to avoid snooping when "ISPs have to snoop on their own customers to ensure no one is breaking the laws of any country".

    So, my question is, if encryption is illegal for citizens to use in China, and we have to follow those laws online, can your credit-card accepting website be shut down for using SSL?
    -------------------------------------------- ------

  • You miss the point. The problem isn't that our elected representatives lack the energy and desire to do a good job. It's that there simply isn't enough time in the day or brainpower in the human mind for anyone to learn everything about every issue (or even a moderate ammount about most issues) that the government has to deal with. This is very literally true; there are many congressional sub-committees meeting at a time, so it's physically not possible for any one person to attend them all, and probably not possible even for one person to read the minutes. And those meetings only scratch the surface of the potentially relevant information about the issues of the day. Our representatives must struggle with partial information about the issues simply because it's not possible for any person to get anything like complete information about all of the issues.

  • Or Europe based web sites having to comply with the narrow laws (concerning e.g. nudity, drugs, or cryptography) of hyporcrite US.

    Obvious flamebait aside, you're quite right. No country should be held to laws not passed under their own form of government. (or in the case of some countries, forced on their people) We'll end up with speech laws from China, drug laws from the U.S., food regulations from Israel, etc...

    Besides, I get sick of conspiracy-freak, one-world-government types in the U.S., and I hate it when something helps prove them right.

  • OK, but who is "defining" this world? I don't want mainland China having a say on Free Speech laws. You seem to assume that the world would be globalized by some benevolent power. If it were to happen, I'd guess it wouldn't be by a benevolent power. More likely, it would be Coca-Cola, Nike, and Microsoft. And human rights would be pretty far down on their lists of things to do.
  • and what would future historians call that war?

    The Hundred Pussies War! :)
    (But I'm sure there would be more than a thousand pussies involved.)
    Hey, you asked. :)
  • If I build a website to which the Chinese government objects, and then visit China, am I liable to be arrested?

    But they're already doing that, aren't they?
  • Where were you when the legal bodies were dispensing with your fourth amendment rights?

    Funny, my person, house, papers and effects are still secure and can't be searched without probable cause. The Supreme Court just extended further into the technical advances of searches saying they can't thermally image my home without a warrant either.

    As was stated many times, its not perfect but its the best we've got and we depend on the courts to keep things in line, recent elections aside :)

  • Before you flame me, think about it.

    OK, I did ... and I'm still gonna flame you

    every person in the US sound like exactly the same asshole whenever a discussion like this takes place.

    I think we don't concentrate on our constitution in schools enough! I fear my kids won't realize that their rights are being taken away by some European who wants some global utopia where nobody is differnet.

    Screw that! We 'Americans' bellow about free speech and the Bill of RIghts because these are core values at the core of our society, whether you were born here or immigrated here. We care deeply about the rights set out for us by very wise men hundreds of years ago because they STILL apply today.

    And we'll prat about it all we want! I don't want to live in a country so afraid of the past they ban web pages FROM OTHER COUNTRIES about certain topics they don't approve of. I don't want to live in a country where my national identity and soul is sold out to the global corporations in some 'union' that's sold as the solution to all your problems.

    So pardon me if get concerned about some foreign body proposing to take away the rights which I deeply care about. It has nothing to do with school indoctrination - it has to do with BELIEVING in it. And when you believe in something as deeply as we Americans believe in the core of our government and society, then you prat about it when those rights are threatened.

    We as a country have been through a lot. Its not perfect but we fight for what we believe in and work to fix whats broken. So call us assholes if you like, we could care less. But we for damn sure aren't gonna sell out our core values and rights in the name of some global 'society'. We're dealing with enough of our own issues as it is! :)

  • I get sick of conspiracy-freak, one-world-government types in the U.S., and I hate it when something helps prove them right.

    No doubt. I was thinking the same damn thing posting to other threads in this story. Sure they were nutso sayin gthe barcodes on street signs were UN codes for troop directions or whatever, but this stuff is super scary. And its all to realistic for our congressmen to be bought out by the global megacorps to accept this for all its flaws (hell they got DCMA through that way)

    Great and I had hoped to sleep soundly tonight :)

  • Yes but you missed the first part where The constiution is ALSO the law of the land and I can assure you the Constitution will trump a treaty anytime
  • Rilly, he authorized the bombing of countries that we weren't even at war at, caused countless civilian casualties and turned the Plain of Jars into the Plain of Craters.


    At least this disproves the truism that history is written by the winning side. Kissinger is an acclaimed statesman, and the Rape of Nanking was consensual.

  • to shoot the students, like we do in the [Kent} States?

  • Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any lobbying groups that work from our perspective. I am thus forced into a question--what needs to be done about this? Since in my original post I mentioned that we each as citizens need to take responsibility for our government.... I guess that means me, too.

    I'm probably just like most other individuals out there--I don't have lots of time. I can't do everything I want and need to do. But I really shouldn't use this as an excuse.

    If anyone has some experience in the area of lobbying, or just has some interest and would be willing to start an organization with me--I'll get some of the paperwork going. I can take care of the non-profit status, collection of "dues" and other administrative things in the beginning. I will find some initial funding to get things going, too. Heck, I can even be the first "director". I can't do everything, though, so I'll need help and support from others. Please e-mail me at "director{at}halfgrey{dot}org" if you (or anyone else) has a desire to get this ball rolling.

  • Which country do you think is pushing most for the treaty?

    Clue: It isn't China. These clauses are being put in to encourage states that, traditionally, have been regarded as "rogue" in the sphere of copyright law, to come on board.

    Thank god Britain rejected Hague two weeks ago. Oh wait, wrong one ;-)

    (Though as they're both the products of corporate greed, you can forgive me for the mistake...)
    --

  • Its probably more of a 'lets pass this, and then follow the laws that are convenient to us' type deal. I'm sure the Moroccan enforcement arm has quite a long reach...

    Its more likely we'll see non-us websites brought down for violating corporate law than anything else...

  • one thing i don't understand about this thing is what happens when laws explicitly clash with each other. for example (and please bear in mind that my main source of information is listening to people in bars), there is a law in Japan that forbids pubic hair in pornography. regardless of what else goes on in their porn, pubic hair is a no-no. meanwhile in Germany, shaved-off pubic hair is illegal on the grounds that it is immoral or paedophilia-ish or something.

    this means that any pornography that shows naked women is illegal in either Germany or Japan.

    so what does this mean? would they go to war over such laws? and what would future historians call that war?

  • This nerd pretense always reminded me of a Seinfeld standup routine: "Ever notice that in the future, on all those Star Trek shows, we all wear the same clothing? At some point planet Earth must have said to itself 'OK people. We're going to be exploring new worlds, seeking out new galaxies. We want to look like a team, here.'"

    But the overwhelming majority of techies are against globalization. I'm all for it. The "differences" that proportedly "support diversity" are also the things that start wars and drive us apart. If we can set trade accords for the entire planet, and remove the divisions of "countries", I'd be all for it. Star Trek clothing, people.

  • Dear Governments of the World (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 22, 2001 @10:18AM (#132655)
    The Internet, especially the World Wide Web, contains the best, and the worst, of the human experience. There is love, hate, art, porn, music, literature, and pretty much anything else you can think of. There are peoples, groups, industries, governments, and others who are on your side, and ther are peoples, groups, industries, governments, and others who think you are evil incarnate. Everything is there.

    The Internet spans the globe. The site that waves the flag of your most hated enemy may be being hosted by your next door neighbor. No Law will prevent people from publishing content that you deem to be inappropriate.

    Unfortunately, because of the flexibiltiy of the underlying protocols of the Internet, anyone with a TCP/IP pipe to the internet can have access to everything on the interent. No filter will block access. No amount of legalities and red tape will make objectionable content go away. Good or bad, the Internet is all or nothing.

    Remember, any TCP/IP pipe will do. Porn can be sent by ping packets. Hate mail can be piggybacked onto a music file, or imbedded in a text document. Propoganda can be passed through port scans. Remember, good or bad, the Internet is all or nothing. You can try to cut off all forms of communication. But even then, what's to stop someone from bouncing a signal off of a satellite, or using spread spectrum radio, or carrier pigeons, to get their connection.

    Your only hope is to train your people to accept the good and reject the bad on their own.

  • Re:Xenophobia? (Score:3)

    by Quarters ( 18322 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @09:32AM (#132656)
    ...US because the US (with their obviously perfect legal system) will have to follow other countries rules.

    Our legal system is far from perfect. Any sane person in the US will tell you that.

    But, that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

    Under the US Constitution I, as a US citizen, have certain inalienable rights pertaining to free speech (among other things). I should not be held to the laws of another country if they don't like what I've said on my web page. A treaty that (may be) signed that I have had no say in can not over rule the laws I live by.

    It's interesting (and sad, really) how you took this discussion and tried to turn it into a diatribe as to how the US is trying to force their 'perfect' laws on everyone in the EU.




  • Re:Wake Up Call (Score:3)

    by WNight ( 23683 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @09:40AM (#132657) Homepage
    And that is one of the major problems with the world today.

    The law is too complex for anyone to completely understand it, let alone a layman, whose interest in the law extends only so far as not wanting to break it and be arrested.

    Any law too complex for your citizens to understand is a bad law. Any set of laws too complex to be understood is bad. Requiring people to follow laws that they can't know is bad.

    Why are we in this sitation?

    Most politicians have law degress and are lawyers. (Anyone got numbers on the US senate congress/senate?) We let politicians pass laws, and lawyers benefit from more, complex, laws. Anyone see the conflict of interest here?

    There are many partial solutions to this, but I'm inclined to agree with Shakespeare for the most part...

  • Re:Constitutional issues (Score:3)

    by tommyk ( 31639 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:38AM (#132658)
    Ummmmm...

    You missed the point. That's saying the constitution of any state notwithstanding, not "this Constitution".

    In other words, the constitution of the great State of Del. doesn't matter a hill of beans next to any federal treaty, law, or the constitution.

  • Something similar (Score:3)

    by Salamander ( 33735 ) <jeff@ p l . a t y p.us> on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:55AM (#132659) Homepage Journal

    Similar concerns have been raised in recent controversies involving the death penalty. There are countries that will refuse to extradite criminals to the US if they believe those criminals are likely to be subject to the death penalty. This group includes some of the US's closest allies, and countries with whom the US has specific agreements or even treaties. Those countries don't care. They are willing to stand up for their view of a basic human right not to be executed by the state, superseding even alliances and treates.

    Why is this relevant? Because it's all about rights, and about governments' responsibility to protect the rights of their citizens (and, occasionally, others). Would any US court, legislature, or executive agree to enforce other nations' laws that it believes violate basic rights? I doubt it. They know that the people (i.e. the voters) really like their rights, and will deeply resent having those rights trampled on. For example, American anti-gambling laws might be held to apply to a British site because, while there's no law against gambling in Britain, there's no constitutional right to gamble either. However, if the Chinese or Singaporeans expect the US to enforce their laws against criticism of the government they'll be disappointed, because we *do* have a constitutional right to free speech.

    Looked at in one way, the laws a country might enforce under Hague would practically consist of the union of signatories' laws, minus those that the country in question considers to violate citizens' rights. Intellectual property laws, however you feel about them, are likely to remain in that set; I don't know of any country that considers the use of someone else's ideas or expressions to be a basic right. Slander and such are trickier. I'm still trying to sort through the issues of procedure, standing, limitations of rights under local law, etc. so I don't know how that one might play out.

  • Constitutional issues (Score:3)

    by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:21AM (#132660) Journal
    From thew Constitution of the United States,Article VI

    This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

    Guess what, if the Hague Convention is ratified, Freedon of Speech will no longer have Constitutional force.


  • there is a lot to be said for the stability of the Chinese government

    Let's see, the Chinese gov't has been around for 52 years (since 1949), the US gov't for 212 years (since 1789). Seems to me the US gov't is the more long-lasting of the two.

  • Give me a common Bill of Rights first (Score:3)

    by JPMH ( 100614 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @09:34AM (#132662)
    I guess what I'm saying is that once you start to interact with the world without mom and pop to back you up, you realize that you need a common framework of laws to amke society work.

    If you are going to have common laws, they had better respect common freedoms.

    I would be (somewhat) happier about the Hague Convention if it incorporated the free speech clauses from the European Declaration on Human Rights, as Jamie Love etc were lobbying for (and even that would be a lot weaker than the 1st Amendment in the US). But it was rejected out of hand.

  • Re:Xenophobia? (Score:3)

    by JPMH ( 100614 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @09:10AM (#132663)
    Nobody is suggesting that the convention is trying to lump the bad bits of other countries laws onto the whole world
    This is exactly what people are suggesting.

    Reminder: the convention is about allowing a judgment in Country A against a national of country B be enforced against their assets in Country C.

    If Country A has dodgy laws or a dodgy judiciary, you had better not have assets in any Country C which does not explicitly reject those laws.

  • There's a big difference between Chinese *culture* and Chinese *government*. The Chinese government, as it is now, has only existed since 1949. Chinese culture, on the other hand, is the oldest culture in existance and has existed, in one form or another, for 2,000 years.

    Also, just because a government has existed for a long period of time doesn't make it a great form of government. That's a fallacy. The duration of existance does not measure the amount of good or evil an entity is.

  • A tad U.S.-centric? (Score:3)

    by caduguid ( 152224 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @12:49PM (#132665)
    It's a funny thing, reading over these comments, seeing all the outrage that U.S. sites might be forced to be censored to comply with corrupt or narrow-minded laws from Morocco or China.

    Reading about this Convention from somewhere outside the States, I couldn't care less about the theoretically-possible Chinese conspiracy to deprive the world of truth and goodness. It will never happen. The villain ain't gonna be China.

    Let's think... what country's legislators and judiciary have both the clout and the audacity to effectively pursue extraterritorial legislation and censorship? (Hint... ask Jon Johanassen.)

    The Convention scares me alright, but not because of China.

  • Re:Seinfeld Globalization (Score:3)

    by Grishnakh ( 216268 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:40AM (#132666)
    If we're going to all wear Star Trek clothing, let's use the uniforms from the Original Series, where women wore really short skirts.

  • Re:Xenophobia? (Score:3)

    by baptiste ( 256004 ) <{su.etsitpab} {ta} {ekim}> on Friday June 22, 2001 @09:02AM (#132667) Homepage Journal
    they're going to have to do so on the basis that legislative imperialism is bad, not simply on the basis that US law or UK law is perfect

    Maybe in the UK, but not here. We Americans are rather proud of the freedoms we've fought for. No our legal system is not perfect. But if you want to stir up American sentiment - tell them their right to free speech is going to be subject to some foreign judicial body. I'll pickup an M16 myself and overthrow any legal body that sells my First Amendment rights out from under me.

    The whole EU concept has some good ideas and some bad ones. But I personally feel it'll be a massive failure beyond just a trade association. Europe is a bit too diverse to fit under one political umbrella. Trade wise its fairly easy - even with teh Euro. But beyond that, there will be too much infighting in a political sense to align laws across EU nations in any meaningful manner.

    I'm proud of my country and accept it for what it is, good things and bad. But I sure as hell am not gonna give up my freedoms to some greater world body in teh name of free trade, globalization, whatever. Our ancestors fought like hell for the freedoms we now enjoy and no world court is gonna change that.

    I'm all for Free Trade, etc. But when it comes to fundamental rights, things get a bit more dicey. SO to me, simply saying that a treaty like this will infringe on my right to say China sucks and so does the EU is good enough for me to hate it. You may say that's xenophobic, but its not. Its nationalistic and unfortunately we've lost some of that in the US lately.

    I never have understood why you can't be nationalistic and proud of your country without being an isolationist. It happens everyday - Countries agree to do things that will improve their country (free trade, whatever) while sayin gthat you'll just have to live with teh rest and if not, too bad.

    Of course what really drives me nuts is my governments tendancy to try and prove to teh world we're right about everything which is stupid. WE're not. I personally think China can do whatever it wants to but don't expect us to lay down and let them run over us if there aren't concessions made in areas we care about.

    The EU was formed to counter the US economically. That's it. The rest is jsut window dressing. But anyoen who thinks the US is going to give in and accept outside judgement on what it does within its borders is smoking dope.

  • Not hard to figure out, but, (Score:3)

    by blair1q ( 305137 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:34AM (#132668) Journal
    What are the Chinese going to do when they find out that every access to an American website from a Chinese IP address receives a copy of goatse.cx?

    --Blair

  • This issue isn't anything new, especially for the United States. From the very earliest days of interstate commerce, this has been a sticky issue for any business. For any state they have a legal business presence in ("nexus"), they must meet the legal requirements of that state, creating difficulties as you adjust your business to meet the requirements of multiple (sometimes overlapping and contradicting) jurisdictions. At least at that level, however, problems aren't usually too bad, mostly because states have (in general) similar laws, and to some extent people have the protection of the full-faith-and-credit clause of the constitution.

    Expanding this past national borders, however, proves tricky. For example, there has been much haggling in the EU regarding various commercial codes, export/import controls, etc. (I don't have a reference handy, but as an example, there have been some disputes over what legally can be sold as wine and chocolate).

    Introduce this on a truly international scale, and you've got a mess. As the cptech web site succintly calls it: "The consequences of global enforcement of non-harmonized laws".

    Anyways, I wouldn't worry about it too much, since the US has a rather cavalier attitude concerning treaties it has signed... as one good example, the US signed the Vienna Convention which ensures access of foreign nationals access to their consul if they get arrested, to ensure that their legal rights are retained. While the US loudly protests when our citizens are denied this right, our US states regularly violate this (see the discussions regarding virtually every execution of a foreign national in the last few years), and many state governments have stated that since it is a US treaty and not a treaty with the state, it's not enforceable.

  • Some interesting background (Score:4)

    by alteridem ( 46954 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:34AM (#132670) Homepage
    {tele}machus_*1 wrote some interesting stuff on this in a recent post, read what he has to say;

    The author of the article forgets one key component of enforcing a judgment: jurisdiction. He makes it sound as if all one has to do is go to France--for example--sue someone there, and bring the judgment to any Hague Treaty signatory to get the judgment enforced. However, the Hague Treaty is about jurisdiction, too. It has detailed rules governing how courts can establish jurisdiction over foreign parties.

    There are two things which prevent judgments from being enforceable in foreign countries. The first is the simple idea of sovereignty: France cannot send its police over into the United States to seize the bank account of a person who has a French judgment against him. France has no power to enforce its laws outside its own borders (and the Hague Treaty will not change this). The second thing is related to sovereignty: a French court does not have jurisdiction to resolve questions of my rights unless I am within France's borders or have established some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable. In other words, if I am not within France's borders, France does not have the sovereign power to decide my rights, because France's sovereignty stops at the border. However, theoretically, if I have established some kind of sufficient contact with France (opening a store there, or selling goods over the internet specifically to people in France), then it sould be reasonable for France to decide my rights (even if they cannot force me to show up) and have that decision, or judgment, be enforceable.

    Things do not work this way now. Right now most countries generally have laws governing jursidiction over foreign parties. For example, French law says that if you are a French citizen, you can obtain a judgment over a foreign party for a dispute that arose anywhere in the world just by bringing the case in French court. Then god help that foreign party when they show up in France and the French citizen gets to enforce that judgment. Further, in the United States we give respect to foreign judgments based on the principle of comity. Comity is basically reciprocal respect: the U.S. will enforce French judgments if France will enforce U.S. judgments. (Note that in practice, right now, the U.S. has more respect for French judgments than France has for U.S. judgments.) However, this principle of comity is limited by our notions of due process of law. The U.S. will not enforce judgments that fail to meet a minimum standard of due process protections. For example, I doubt if a U.S. court would enforce a judgment from a secret, Iranian military court (where people are tried without even being allowed to be present to mount a defense or confront their accusers).

    The Hague Treaty will change all this for its signatories. First, of all, it provides general rules for jurisdiction. Thus, France would not be able to keep its law that any French citizen can sue any foreign party in a French court and get an enforceable judgment. Each country would have to provide reasonable rules for jurisdiction. Second, the principle of comity (as between signatories) would drop out of the picture. In the U.S., we would already have adequate assurance that a foreign judgment meets our standards of due process. France would be forced to give the same respect U.S. judgments as the U.S. gives to French judgments.

    The upshot is that the article ignores the concept of jurisdiction. Just because a French business obtains a judgment against me in France, even under the Hague Treaty, that judgment is not automatically enforced unless it is valid, i.e., the French court had jurisdiction over me. If the French court did not follow the Hague Treaty rules on jurisdiction, which should be fair to all countries, then that judgment will not be valid (think of it as an ultra vires exercise of sovereignty) and it will not be enforceable in other Hague signatory nations.

    For those of you with access to Westlaw or Lexis, you can read more about the concept of jurisdiction and the Hague Treaty in a Cornell Law Review article, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, by Professor Kevin Clermont, published in issue 1 of Volume 85 (November 1999). This is the legal cite: 85 Cornell L. Rev. 89. (You can also read my article for some background on the law of jurisdiction in the U.S., 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1742 (Sept. 2000).)The author of the article forgets one key component of enforcing a judgment: jurisdiction. He makes it sound as if all one has to do is go to France--for example--sue someone there, and bring the judgment to any Hague Treaty signatory to get the judgment enforced. However, the Hague Treaty is about jurisdiction, too. It has detailed rules governing how courts can establish jurisdiction over foreign parties.

    There are two things which prevent judgments from being enforceable in foreign countries. The first is the simple idea of sovereignty: France cannot send its police over into the United States to seize the bank account of a person who has a French judgment against him. France has no power to enforce its laws outside its own borders (and the Hague Treaty will not change this). The second thing is related to sovereignty: a French court does not have jurisdiction to resolve questions of my rights unless I am within France's borders or have established some kind of contact with France that makes France's jurisdiction over me reasonable. In other words, if I am not within France's borders, France does not have the sovereign power to decide my rights, because France's sovereignty stops at the border. However, theoretically, if I have established some kind of sufficient contact with France (opening a store there, or selling goods over the internet specifically to people in France), then it sould be reasonable for France to decide my rights (even if they cannot force me to show up) and have that decision, or judgment, be enforceable.

    Things do not work this way now. Right now most countries generally have laws governing jursidiction over foreign parties. For example, French law says that if you are a French citizen, you can obtain a judgment over a foreign party for a dispute that arose anywhere in the world just by bringing the case in French court. Then god help that foreign party when they show up in France and the French citizen gets to enforce that judgment. Further, in the United States we give respect to foreign judgments based on the principle of comity. Comity is basically reciprocal respect: the U.S. will enforce French judgments if France will enforce U.S. judgments. (Note that in practice, right now, the U.S. has more respect for French judgments than France has for U.S. judgments.) However, this principle of comity is limited by our notions of due process of law. The U.S. will not enforce judgments that fail to meet a minimum standard of due process protections. For example, I doubt if a U.S. court would enforce a judgment from a secret, Iranian military court (where people are tried without even being allowed to be present to mount a defense or confront their accusers).

    The Hague Treaty will change all this for its signatories. First, of all, it provides general rules for jurisdiction. Thus, France would not be able to keep its law that any French citizen can sue any foreign party in a French court and get an enforceable judgment. Each country would have to provide reasonable rules for jurisdiction. Second, the principle of comity (as between signatories) would drop out of the picture. In the U.S., we would already have adequate assurance that a foreign judgment meets our standards of due process. France would be forced to give the same respect U.S. judgments as the U.S. gives to French judgments.

    The upshot is that the article ignores the concept of jurisdiction. Just because a French business obtains a judgment against me in France, even under the Hague Treaty, that judgment is not automatically enforced unless it is valid, i.e., the French court had jurisdiction over me. If the French court did not follow the Hague Treaty rules on jurisdiction, which should be fair to all countries, then that judgment will not be valid (think of it as an ultra vires exercise of sovereignty) and it will not be enforceable in other Hague signatory nations.

    For those of you with access to Westlaw or Lexis, you can read more about the concept of jurisdiction and the Hague Treaty in a Cornell Law Review article, Jurisdictional Salvation and the Hague Treaty, by Professor Kevin Clermont, published in issue 1 of Volume 85 (November 1999). This is the legal cite: 85 Cornell L. Rev. 89. (You can also read my article for some background on the law of jurisdiction in the U.S., 85 Cornell L. Rev. 1742 (Sept. 2000).)

  • Xenophobia? (Score:4)

    by SmileyBen ( 56580 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:22AM (#132671) Homepage
    In the UK, the internationalisation war is basically being fought about the country's place in the EU. Unfortunately, much of the debate is drowned in Xenophobic rhetoric, and I'm not convinced this sort of article (or at least parts of it) are going to do anyone any favours. Whilst of course different people hold different viewpoints, many people go on record as saying this is going to be terrible for the US because the US (with their obviously perfect legal system) will have to follow other countries rules. In the context of a debate about coming under international juristriction, such US-centric moans are absurd, just as the UK-centric ones about the EU are absurd. Nobody is suggesting that the convention is trying to lump the bad bits of other countries laws onto the whole world - the problem with the convention is that people disagree about which parts /are/ bad (most legislators think their own country's laws are the way to go). I'm as much terrified of what I see as insane and dangerous laws about freedom of speech, bearing arms, etc. being forced upon the UK (/EU) as I am of having to obey the DMCA.

    So basically, xenophobically claiming that this convention is going to hurt *MY* country doesn't engage with the debate, and if these people, even RMS, want to make a serious defence against it, they're going to have to do so on the basis that legislative imperialism is bad, not simply on the basis that US law or UK law is perfect and we don't want other countries screwing it all up for us. Accept that different countries do things different ways and you might show that this is bad - it's only those that think there's a perfect universal law that would support such legislation.
  • In other words, who in there right minds believes that ANY US congressman from ANY party is going to accept an international court ruling to tell an American web site to take something down?

    It was my understanding that Yahoo et all did this to prevent being kicked out of countries like France, etc. But for the vast majority of websites in teh US that DON'T have an international presence, I can't imagine the Hauge sending troops in to turn down my website on US soil and any attempt to do so will surely bring in teh Supreme Court on constitutional free speech issues. What am I missing?

    Heck get real - if you don't like whats on a US site, block it like China does but leave me the hell alone. The who pull the network cable out of my PC over my dead body thing ;)

  • RIAA vs Them (Score:4)

    by Anml4ixoye ( 264762 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @09:53AM (#132673) Homepage
    From the article..
    Sarah Deutsch, associate general counsel for Verizon Communications, said the treaty, as it stands, could disrupt e-commerce because Web infrastructure companies would have to worry about every transmission that moves over their network. Despite complaints from her company, AT&T and Yahoo, the delegates did not insert protections for ISPs and portals into the treaty.

    And for...

    The only groups that seem to have positive comments about the treaty are copyright holders, who hope the pact will let them crack down on infringement in new and more stringent ways.

    And against...

    "People don't realize what a disaster this could be," said Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation

    And For...

    "The draft convention may advance, in some respects, the effective protection of copyright--particularly as the convention relates to enforcement of judgments," a group including the Association of American Publishers, the Business Software Alliance, the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America wrote during a comment period on the convention.

    In other words, those groups hope to apply the laws of countries with the strictest copyright restrictions to gain control of their products.

    So in other words...
    "People don't realize what a disaster this could be," said Richard Stallman, president of the Free Software Foundation

    Imagine that. The RIAA endorsing a forum that gives them complete control, regardless of what almost every other major business in the US wants. Hmmmm...

  • Before you laugh... (Score:5)

    by rkent ( 73434 ) <rkent@post.ha r v a r d . edu> on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:30AM (#132674)
    ... keep in mind that this could well pass, and might even make sense to future generations. Think about it: the Net as world-wide resource. Seems logical that it would be subject to every jurisdiction where it's viewable. Of course this would produce a network of homogenized, inoffensive, blase information, but probably lots of people already don't realize it's more than that. I mean, when you log on to AOL and read the AOL news and stream some AOL music, the only indication that there's anything marginally offensive on the net is that pesky pile of Porn-Spam in your inbox.

    Despite all the objections we have, the main reason I see our legislators rejecting it is that it obligates US-based ISPs to be content police for every jursidiction on earth, which is clearly ridiculous. AOL, @Home, and Earthlink will scream bloody murder about this obligation, and they'll be fighting the good fight for once. If anything remotely like this is to be ratified, it should place the burden on China, Morocco, et al to reject content they find unacceptable, even if that means banning everything from outside thier borders... after all, I mean, if Morocco has a law against all depiction of nudity (for instance), I suppose I respect that law, but let THEM enforce it. That's not the job of my U.S.-based ISP, thank you very much.

    ---

  • US censorship more probable (Score:5)

    by santeri ( 91589 ) on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:24AM (#132675) Homepage
    " One of the examples of the implications of this treaty is US based web sites having to comply with the narrow laws of countries like China or Morocco."

    Or Europe based web sites having to comply with the narrow laws (concerning e.g. nudity, drugs, or cryptography) of hyporcrite US.

    Pot, kettle, etc.

    ______________

  • Wake Up Call (Score:5)

    by clark625 ( 308380 ) <clark625@yahoo . c om> on Friday June 22, 2001 @08:20AM (#132676) Homepage

    Perhaps this is a good time for those of us who read /. to consider the reality of the US system of government. Senators, congresspersons, and even presidents cannot know absolutely everything about every issue. They simply haven't the time, energy, or desire. And we can't condemn our representatives for this.

    Instead, we need to individually contact our representatives. They aren't all evil, and they actually do care about their constituents. But they have to make decisions based on the information that they receive. It is our responsibility as citizens to help our government make proper decisions.

    It is irresponsible for us to simply complain when our government is on the brink of doing something terrible for our rights and needs. We must instead be an interactive force in government. The NRA and AARP are so successful as lobby groups because of their members. Perhaps it's time for geeks to think about membership in a similar lobbist group. Shoot, if the FSF gave out membership cards and bumper stickers for $50 a year, I'd do it.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close