backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 70 comment(s) - last by Blight AC.. on Sep 21 at 9:24 AM
Search company says they had no choice in aiding the Chinese government

Yahoo! has sought to dismiss a human rights lawsuit filed against it in late last August, in which the company stands accused of “aiding and abetting” the torture committed against Chinese dissidents on Chinese soil. The suit accuses Yahoo! Hong Kong of assisting the police investigation of “cyber-dissidents” by handing over the names and IP addresses of Wang Xiaoning, among three others, who used Yahoo!’s e-mail and groups services in their protests.

Mr. Xiaoning was ultimately convicted on the charge of “incitement to subvert state power” and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in September 2003, where he has allegedly endured torture and other human rights abuses.
 
Yahoo!’s 51-page response was filed in the San Francisco federal court. Mr. Xiaoning “assumed the risk of harm when [he] chose to use Yahoo! China email and group list services to engage in activity they knew violated Chinese law,” wrote Yahoo!, adding that the company was compelled to comply with the demands of the government over where they do business.
 
Filed by the World Organization for Human Rights, on behalf of Xiaoning and a few other dissidents, Yahoo! stands accused of violating the Alien Tort Claims Act of 1798 and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1992; both have been occasionally successful in cases of foreign jurisdiction.
 
“Even if [Yahoo!] was lawful in China, that does not take away from Yahoo's obligation to follow not just Chinese law, but US law and international legal standards as well, when they do business abroad,” said Morton Sklar of the World Organization for Human Rights.
 
With China’s market potential, many businesses opening offices there have had to contradict their stated policies in order to remain in good standing with the Chinese government, which actively monitors and censors materials it does not agree with. Recently, Yahoo! and MSN China signed a “self-discipline” pact in China, where each company was “encouraged” to register the personal details of bloggers, self-police their networks for undesirable or treasonous messages and keep information on hand to assist police investigations.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Yahoo the Opressor
By Misty Dingos on 9/20/2007 10:34:50 AM , Rating: 5
Oh I could hammer Yahoo for helping the Chinese torture and imprison people for the same thing that I am doing now (expressing freedom of speech) but I won’t. If they want to make a deal with the devil to make a few more dollars I say go right ahead Yahoo. But I will not knowingly use their services. And should they loose this case (I think they should) their company should be broken up and sold to the highest bidder. The proceeds should then be used to promote a free China.

I will on the other hand I do damn the Chinese government for the repressive nature of its regime. Freedom of speech, Freedom of assemble, Freedom of religion, Freedom from government repression, Freedom to form opposition parties. These are not negotiable. China Let Your People Free!

People are not a function of government. Government is a function of the people.




RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By gradoman on 9/20/2007 10:40:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well,

There are laws to follow and this guy broke 'em. Seems unfair to us, that his basic human right of freedom of speech was violated, but that's how it is over there. Yahoo has to obey the law and hand over this fellow.

People will pay the price for future generation's freedoms. Look to slavery and civil rights here in the USA -- wasn't too long ago that minorities & women didn't have basic rights either. Hopefully, in the not-to-distant future, the people of China will have transformed its govt and gain these human rights.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Misty Dingos on 9/20/2007 11:23:09 AM , Rating: 5
Just because it is a law doesn't make it right. It was law in Germany that Jews had to wear yellow stars to identify them. Was that right? It was law in the US that people could buy and sell other people. Was that right? And in both of those cases brave people took it upon themselves to circumvent the law to do the right thing.

There are lots of laws that don't deserve any respect. And violation of those laws should be supported by people that can.

We in the free world should support and defend the denied rights of the Chinese people. That means when they jail and torture someone for speaking we should hold the Chinese government accountable and their accomplices also.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By gradoman on 9/20/2007 11:32:56 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, well who are you to tell them it is wrong? That's just like, in the Caribbean, where I'm from, corporal punishment is the norm in schools. Teachers are allowed to beat the kids. Do you find this to be "right"?

There are a lotta things that you probably would find "wrong" since your ideas as to what is right and wrong are one thing. You have been socialized into thinking that way.

Look at the laws for drugs in Indonesia. You will be effing killed if caught with drugs. Is this more "right" or "wrong" than in the USA -- where you will be sent to jail for a period of time..


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 11:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
Well, if people don't embrace moral absolutes, then the definition of 'right' and 'wrong' will never be agreed upon. I find that very disturbing...


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Adonlude on 9/20/07, Rating: 0
RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 3:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
That's horrible advice, but I think you already know that... :)


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Christopher1 on 9/20/2007 4:44:19 PM , Rating: 2
Why is that very disturbing? People are ALWAYS going to differ on 'morality', so I say as long as someone is not killing someone else or torturing someone else..... someone else's 'morality' can take a bullet to the head, because it doesn't belong in my business.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By vortmax on 9/20/2007 4:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People are ALWAYS going to differ on 'morality', so I say as long as someone is not killing someone else or torturing someone else...

You answered your own question. It's very disturbing because someone's 'morals' may allow the killing and/or tortue of someone else.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 2
> "Just because it is a law doesn't make it right..."

But its up to the people to change laws. Businesses have to follow the law, like it or not.

> "That means when they jail and torture someone for speaking we should hold the Chinese government accountable "

How do you suggest we do that? Its rather hard to enforce your will upon a nuclear-armed adversary.

I don't like the Chinese government any more than you do (rather less so, in fact I suspect), but we have to be realistic about options. We can't use military force against China. We could cut off trade, sure. But that would destroy budding capitalism in the nation, and simply strengthen the rule of the Communists.

Doing business with China is the best way to subvert its government and help its people. It was one of the few things Clinton was right about.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Misty Dingos on 9/20/2007 12:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
The people of China can not change their laws. And why do businesses have to follow laws anymore than people do? Pepsi smuggled sugar into the US during WW2 in direct violation of US law at the time. Their only goal was to remain in business. If they had been caught the company executives could have been imprisoned.

Yes it is very difficult to hold China directly responsible their internal policing. But we could proceed through diplomatic channels. If that were insufficient then we could deny them access to markets. Not all markets, as you said we do not want to cripple their capitalism. We could also limit their access to international banking. We could also deny US companies export licenses to China. We don’t need to threaten China militarily to achieve the improvement in human rights in China. The limits of our response is only curtailed by the boundaries of military adventurism on one end and ineffectual pandering on the other.

While we freely banter back and forth about the merits of the case against Yahoo here, I wonder how many of us would have the fortitude to do so if we knew that every post could lead to arrest, prison without trial and torture for years at a time. And only the prospect of slave labor as an improvement to the prison sentence.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 5
> "The people of China can not change their laws"

On the contrary. They're the only ones who can change their laws. US businesses can't do that, nor can a UN proclamation. The outside world can offer aid and encouragement...but China has to define its own legal code.

> "we could deny them access to markets. Not all markets, as you said we do not want to cripple their capitalism"

Deny them access to one market and you exert no pressure at all. Deny them access to many, and we cripple budding capitalist in the country. There's no easy solution, is there?

> "Pepsi smuggled sugar into the US during WW2 in direct violation of US law at the time."

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Of course businesses can violate the law. But its not beneficial for them to do so. Corporations do not have the same rights as citizen. They cannot vote; they cannot change laws, and they do not have the moral right to engage in civil disobedience. If you work for a company and a law requires you to do something you find morally objectionable, the proper course of action is to resign...not to stay employed and refuse to do it.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 2:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
Trade moratoriums would be more effective than pressure from the people. Crippling capitalism will harm the people but it can be just as likely to cause the people to take steps to change the government as creating a complacency though improving the private sector without first developing a more tolerant government.

The pressure on the government will be that it weakens the country. Prosperity doesn't cause change, it reinforces current behaviors.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 2:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
> "Prosperity doesn't cause change, it reinforces current behaviors. "

What we're seeing in China is the exact opposite of this. Decades of poverty and hardship simply reinforced the government's strangehold on the people. Nascent capitalism is the first thing to change people's lives for the better.

Running Google and Yahoo out of China isn't going to convince the people to rise up and overthrow the government. It'll simply shut off what little access to the outside world they have, and roll back what advances have already been made.

Has pressure on North Korea made the goverment weaker? Quite the reverse. Government officials drive Mercedes, live in palatial homes, have access to the best medical care and luxury goods from all over the world. The average citizen doesn't even get enough to eat. They're far too busy rooting for roots and berries to even think about protest, much less armed overthrow of the government.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 5:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
On the contrary, there is now increased capitalism, not an increased state of poverty and hardship, and now they are still torturing people.

I never suggested Google or Yahoo should be ran out of China, access to information will have a strong influence on liberating the population.

North Korea has a different situation being much smaller, spending more of the GNP on their (relatively) huge military, and primary exports like labor, basic staples.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By masher2 (blog) on 9/20/2007 5:12:22 PM , Rating: 2
> "there is now increased capitalism, not an increased state of poverty and hardship..."

Which is exactly what I said. That's a good thing, isn't it?

> "...and now they are still torturing people"

But they're doing so less than they used to. It wasn't that long ago that the PRC government was actively murdering tens of millions of innocent civilians, instead of just beating up a few dissidents. I call that an improvement.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By mindless1 on 9/20/2007 8:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
It is a good thing, but that the torturing continues then contradicts it being enough.

I'm not in the habit of thinking a country should be made more prosperous because they do "less" of a wrong thing than they used to. Draw a line and let them decide.


RE: Yahoo the Opressor
By Ringold on 9/20/2007 2:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
That's unfortunately wrong on almost every account.

Prosperity has a strong track record of being accompanied by further democratization of countries. On the reverse, almost every time any world power has experienced economic calamity, the powers of fascism, communism or other extreme forms of authoritarianism rush in with amazing speed and effectiveness to fill the void of confidence. China has already proven this as it's current situation is much improved from just 20-30 years ago.

As far as starting a trade war.. that's be far more devastating to us than it would be to them -- for a multitude of reasons. Also, they'd like recover; the repercussions to America, though, and to the dollar in international markets, would cause such deep fundamental damage that we'd spend the rest of the first half of the century trying to claw our way back to the top ranks of the world eonomic ladder. All the while China would've simply exported to someone with less moral arrogance.

This kind of talk should strike everybody as similar to that of Iraq. We're there, now, to help the people with our own values. Now many human rights liberals get their panties in a wad over China. But we try to preserve them in Iraq and we get screwed and reviled.

There's over a billion Chinese. How many elite, ruling-class Party members are there? That's not "how many Party members are there" but how many elite, actually ruling class ones. Possibly a million? If they people give a sufficient damn, and decide that a damn shall be