France to expand its jurisdiction, limit US free speech

3 posts in this topic

France is trying to extend European anti free speech laws against US internet companies -- this time going after Twitter in order to censor so-called 'hate speech' seen on the internet from France even though Twitter has no physical presence or offices in that country. Twitter already routinely surrenders to demands to remove European-banned speech on its site when accessed from Europe, and Twitter and Google have been pressured before by governments, including Germany and Britain, to turn over personal information, but a French court has recently ordered the US company with no physical presence in France to turn over the identity of those posting banned speech.

The current French case is being characterized by the New York Times as a mere "complicated" legal controversy over "what country's laws" have jurisdiction over "internet content", with the "wrinkle" that Twitter is not in France. In fact it is a battle to impose -- increasingly on people outside national borders and by any means possible -- social controls and censorship of ideas expressed on the internet.

In a French Case, a Battle to Unmask Twitter Users

A French court on Thursday told Twitter to identify people who had posted anti-Semitic and racist entries on the social network. Twitter is not sure it will comply. And the case is yet another dust-up in the struggle over speech on the Internet, and which countries' laws prevail.

The court order came in a lawsuit brought by French groups who said the Twitter postings, which were made under pseudonyms, broke French law against racist speech. Twitter has said that under its own rules, it does not divulge the identity of users except in response to a valid court order in the United States, where its data is stored. Twitter has already removed some of the content at issue from its site in France, in keeping with company policy to remove posts in countries where they violate the law...

It remains unclear whether French prosecutors will press their case across the Atlantic and force Twitter's hand in an American court under a time-consuming process detailed in a so-called mutual legal assistance treaty.

The case revolves around the broad question of which country's laws have jurisdiction over content on the Internet...

In this case, the jurisdictional issue has an additional wrinkle because Twitter does not have an office in France and does not face the prosecution of its employees here, a problem that other Web companies, like Facebook and Google, have faced elsewhere. Twitter is popular in France, nonetheless. It is available to anyone with an Internet connection and sells ads on its site here. This could embolden French authorities to try to apply its laws to the service.

With 200 million users, most of them outside the United States, Twitter has confronted these conundrums over hate speech and free expression before, especially in Europe...

Full article CNBC from NYT 1/25/13.

The exploitation of posts characterized as "racist and anti-semitic" is clear enough. As Ayn Rand wrote in her article 'Censorship: Local And Express':

n the transition to statism, every infringement of human rights has begun with the suppression of a given right's least attractive practitioners. In this case, the disgusting nature of the offenders makes it a good test of one's loyalty to a principle.

... and so is the source and nature of the expansion of European censorship into the US -- as Ayn Rand wrote in 'The Roots of War':

A country that violates the rights of its own citizens, will not respect the rights of its neighbors. Those who do not recognize individual rights, will not recognize the rights of nations: a nation is only a number of individuals.

You can see the implications of this for Obama's "globalist" anti-American policies. Will US courts go along with this increasing travesty of censorship in the name of "globalism" and "mutual legal assistance", with additional pressure on Twitter through behind-the-scenes bureaucratic threats? The Obama regime has so far not given in to demands for international UN control over the internet, but has supported the suppression of ideas it calls "hate speech" critical of Muzzl'ems, which it notoriously put into action when Obama created and pushed a phony "narrative" blaming the terrorist murders of embassy workers in Bengazi on a "youtube video", demonized the video producer internationally, and in loud appeasement to Muzzl'ems arranged for him to be jailed for being on the internet under the guise of a "probation violation" -- all out of proportion to any actual violation but fully in accordance with a censorship agenda implemented through non-objective law.

"There is no free speech for the regulated". There are more than enough non-objective "regulations" and bureaucratic powers to pressure and intimidate anyone for being "guilty" of something or threatened by something. Is this why Twitter is already caving in to demands to remove posts not approved by European authorities, or has it already become a matter of self-imposed censorship in accordance with fear and 'dhimmitude'?

As Ayn Rand put it in her article "Mans Rights":

Censorship, in its old-fashioned meaning, is a government edict that forbids the discussion of some specific subjects or ideas—such, for instance, as sex, religion or criticism of government officials—an edict enforced by the government’s scrutiny of all forms of communication prior to their public release. But for stifling the freedom of men’s minds the modern method is much more potent; it rests on the power of nonobjective law; it neither forbids nor permits anything; it never defines or specifies; it merely delivers men’s lives, fortunes, careers, ambitions into the arbitrary power of a bureaucrat who can reward or punish at whim. It spares the bureaucrat the troublesome necessity of committing himself to rigid rules—and it places upon the victims the burden of discovering how to please him, with a fluid unknowable as their only guide.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happened to Liberté, égalité, fraternité,?

Since the days of Napoleon all dictators have aspired to global government. Hitler tried and failed. Stalin tried, almost succeeded but eventually also failed. Now it is Obama's turn. In the days of Napoleon or Stalin the only way to achieve this goal was a military conquest. However today, powerful international organizations like the UN or EU try to achieve this goal by controlling global information networks, like the Internet, Facebook or Twitter. Since the government as we know it is self-sustained structure, a tendency to expand is inherent in it. No law or clause in the Constitution could prevent it-government controls law making and could always amend the Constitution as it happens today. To curb government expansion we need first of all remove governmental ownership of the physical means of oppression. The whole concept of public ownership, which in fact is governmental ownership, should be eliminated.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

To curb government expansion we need first of all remove governmental ownership of the physical means of oppression. The whole concept of public ownership, which in fact is governmental ownership, should be eliminated.

Elimination of government control over what should be private property across the country and taking weapons against innocent people away from government cannot be done in a vacuum. Private property and protection of the rights and freedom of the individual are a consequence of a political philosophy of individualism and cannot be protected without it. But if that post was supposed to be resurrecting the pitch for a scheme of corporate ownership of government property through 'holding companies' it does not belong here; it is both wrong and irrelevant to the topic of the thread, which is freedom of speech, censorship, and specifically the trend towards internationalizing censorship attacking the internet.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites