1. A Gift of Fire 5.4 Whose Laws Rule the Web? By: Hasan Dang Sara Base: A Gift of Fire pgs. 258-267

2. Outline 5.4.1 Digital Actions Cross Borders 5.4.2 Libel, Speech, and Commercial Law 5.4.3 Culture, Law, and Ethics 5.4.4 Potential Solutions 3. 5.4.1 When Digital Actions Cross Borders Multinational corporations and tourist have always had to learn about and comply with the laws of countries they operated in or visited. At home, in the past, they only had to deal with their home countrys laws. The Web changed that 4. 5.4.1 When Digital Actions Cross Borders Which countries laws should apply when web content crosses borders? 5. Areas in which national laws differ: o Content Control/ Censorship o Intellectual Property o Gambling o Hacking/Viruses o Libel o Privacy o Commerce o Spam 5.4.1 When Digital Actions Cross Borders 6. 5.4.1 Whose Laws Rule the Web Responsibility to Prevent Access: - It is the responsibility of providers of service and information to make sure their material is not accessible in countries where it is illegal. 7. 5.4.1 When Digital Actions Cross Borders ILOVEYOU Virus: o Infected millions of computers world wide in 2000. o Destroyed files, collected passwords, and snarled computers at major corporations and government agencies. o Prosecutors dropped charges against the Philippine man responsible because the Philippines at the time had no laws against releasing viruses. 8. Yahoo vs. France Display and sale of Nazi memorabilia is illegal in France and Germany. o Two antiracism organizations sued Yahoo in a French court in 1999 because French people could view Nazi memorabilia being offered for sale on Yahoos U.S. based auction. o Yahoos Argument: It is not technically feasible to block France from accessing Yahoo. Use of filters would not be able to distinguish references to Nazis in hate material, references in The Diary of Anne Frank, or holocaust memorials. 9. Yahoo vs. France cont. o Legal Issues: Should French law apply to Yahoo auction sites on Yahoos computers located outside of France? o Results: Criminal against Yahoo and former CEO Tim Koogle were dismissed. Yahoo and Koogle were acquitted and the court decided that permitting the auction was not justifying the Nazi crimes. 10. 5.4.2 Libel, Speech, and Commercial Law Differences among free countries Libel- Written defamation Slander- Verbal defamation The U.S. has a strong protection for freedom of speech and expression of opinion. Public figures such as politicians and entertainers, have less libel protection than other people. The reasoning is that vigorous, open debate- ultimately freedom- would suffer if people could not express strong opinions about prominent people. English and Australian law on the other hand, place more emphasis on protecting reputations. The burden of proof differs in different countries. In the U.S., the person who is suing has the burden of proving the case. Public figures in the U.S. must prove the published information is false and that the publisher knew it was false. Libel Law in other countries requires that the publisher of the statement prove it is true or that the publisher reasonably believed it to be true. 11. Libel law as a threat to free speech The differences in libel laws amongst different countries have caused a phenomenon called Libel Tourism. Libel Tourism: The person or business being sued is not located in the country the case was established. Example: A U.S. publisher published a book in the U.S. about funding of terrorism. A few people in England purchased copies over the web. A Saudi banker who, according to the book, helped fund Osama bin Laden, brought a libel suit in England against the author and won. The content was posted outside of England, but the content was still accessible. Such lawsuits impede freedom of speech for people in countries other than England where the libel suit would have failed. 12. Libel law as a threat to free speech cont. The abuse of the libel law led to passage of the SPEECH Act of 2010, which makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in the U.S. if they violate the First Amendment. o But if U.S. courts do not enforce such foreign court decisions, foreign governments can seize assets of U.S. companies that are in their country or arrest visiting individuals. Location of a trial is highly important even when countries have similar laws. A trial in a foreign country means high travel and legal expenses. In the U.S. libel cases where two parties are from different states the court will often rule that the trial be held where the damages take place. This would make sense for international cases as well but only in reasonable free countries like the U.S., England, and Australia. 13. Libel law as a threat to free speech cont. But what happens if the country is not like ours, and uses strict libel laws for political purposes? Saudi Arabia: Bans anything damaging to the dignity of head of state. Russia: It is a crime to slander government officials. Singapore: Government officials often use libel laws to bankrupt critical opposition 14. The European Union (EU) severely restricts advertising of medical drugs and devices directed to consumers. Some countries prohibit or restrict direct price comparisons, product giveaways, and contributions to charity. Should commercial websites with drug ads or price comparison have to screen out shoppers from countries where the are illegal? 15. 5.4.3. Culture, Law, and Ethics If publishers must comply with the laws of almost 200 countries, would they protect themselves by avoiding anything controversial? The fear is that this would destroy the openness and global information flow of the internet. 16. 5.4.3 Culture, Law, and Ethics Jack Goldsmith and Tim Wu, in their book Who Controls the Internet?, argue that the global network is becoming a collection of nation-state networks 17. 5.4.4 Potential Solutions International agreements: Can set a common standard or means of resolving international cases among the countries that sign them. An alternative principle to responsibility to prevent access Authority to prevent entry: The government of Country A can act within Country A to try to block the entrance of material that is illegal there, but may not apply its laws to the people who create and publish the material, or provide a service, in Country B if it is legal there. 18. 5.4.4 Potential Solutions If influential countries like the United States and France, for example, adopted this principle and refrained from arresting visiting foreigners, their example could apply pressure to less free countries to do the same.