This site has moved to robert.williamsonline.us.
Harrumph! Yeah, right... links to an article about the applicability of nation's laws to the internet, and the attempts by various countries to use their laws to control citizens of other countries.
Mr. Ballard writes
Whoa! This is NOT gonna be easy to work out.
Actually, I think it is quite simple. USS Clueless has an excellent post on the idea of "international law" that is particularly relevant to this question.
Essentially, there is no such thing as "The Law". There are lots of bodies of law, but they are not universally applicable. We are only bound by the body of laws that are made by the government we consent to be governed by. I am not governed by French law, EU law, or Oklahoma law.
Content hosted by American firms is not censorable by Italian police. Yahoo shouldn't even bother appealing the French decision about Nazi memorabilia for sale on Yahoo. Governments have no authority over those who do not consent to be governed, i.e., those who do not live where that particular government has authority.
So the correct way to work this out is for people and countries to simply ignore the laws that do not apply to them.
Posted by Robert at July 23, 2002 02:41 PM | TrackBackYou say "Governments have no authority over those who do not consent to be governed, i.e., those who do not live where that particular government has authority ... people and countries [should] simply ignore the laws that do not apply to them." You use the example that you are not governed by Oklahoma law, thus you are not bound by Oklahoma law.
By this reasoning, whenever a person is traveling, or whenever a company is doing business away from its home base, then it should disregard the laws of the land they are currently in. Which would mean, if we take your example, that even such rudimentary things such as speed limits would no longer be enforcable for the majority of the people in any given location.
"Yes, Officer, I'm perfectly aware I was driving 80 MPH in your 65 MPH zone. However, I live in Texas where we have a 75 MPH speed limit, and I refuse to recognize your law here. Ta ta!"
"I'm sorry, ma'am, I live in Texas where we have a conceal and carry law, and while your state doesn't recognize it, I refuse to acknowledge that and can carry my arsenal under my coat whenever I like. Stand aside."
Every city, county, state, and country in the world has different laws and rules. Some are slightly different from one another, and some are perverse and antiquated by our standards, as no doubt ours are to other countries. But if other laws and rules are not respected, why should we expect other people to respect ours?
Posted by: Steve on July 23, 2002 03:10 PMBy this reasoning, whenever a person is traveling, or whenever a company is doing business away from its home base, then it should disregard the laws of the land they are currently in.
The international law post that I referred to deals with the question of travel explicitly. I didn't spell this out, because I didn't see the need to. Here is an excerpt from the post:
If I, as a private citizen, travel to some other nation then the laws of that nation will apply to me while I am there...But by my choice to travel to those nations, I am consenting to be governed by their laws.
If I travel to Oklahoma, I am implicitly consenting to be governed by Oklahoma law. If I do business in Spain, then the part of my business conducted in Spain is subject to Spanish law.
But if other laws and rules are not respected, why should we expect other people to respect ours?
I don't expect anyone other than Americans (and those who are visiting America) to obey America's laws. I don't expect anyone other than Texans (and those who are visiting Texas) to obey Texas's laws. I will obey the laws of whatever place I travel to, and I expect others to do the same. But I am not bound by the laws of places that I am neither visiting nor a citizen of.
Posted by: Robert on July 23, 2002 03:25 PM