CPSC 313

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 country’s 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 Yahoo’s U.S.
based auction.
o Yahoo’s 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 Yahoo’s 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.