The ruling could let EU nations override other countries' own laws, critics say.
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
EU nations can force Facebook to remove content worldwide, court rules
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
The ramifications for other websites are what I find more troubling than it just being the designated social punching bag (Facebook).
Upvote
127
(131
/
-4)
I am far from an information-should-be-free zealot, but the EU has views on what sorts of data can enter the world consciousness and then be permanently redacted from it by force of law, and I find them to be startlingly draconian.
Upvote
177
(195
/
-18)
If we extrapolate this, it either means either that the EU believes that China can censor the entire internet, the EU has powers that other nations don't, or the court did not really think this thing through/doesn't understand tech.
Upvote
269
(277
/
-8)
Upvote
167
(172
/
-5)
This ruling says that the EU can censor other countries, not that other countries can censor the EU. Why, that would be bad!
Upvote
121
(128
/
-7)
Maybe we can convince some small third-world nation to ban all of Facebook's content, since it has been shown to be harmful.
Then the EU court can sit in the corner and think this through more carefully. But hopefully not too quickly.
Upvote
82
(88
/
-6)
Wait, didn't they just give a conflicting ruling in regards to forcing Google to remove content? So much for the EU courts making reasonable decisions for a while there :/
Upvote
46
(51
/
-5)
I see a major distinction between the Google case and this one - in the Google case they are simply indexing information of other sites, not their own. In this case, it appears to be aimed only at posts within the Facebook network. As a lot of people commented should be done with the Google case, they are actually doing the smart thing and going after the site that is providing the information. If this was narrowly targeted, I don't see the problem.
On the other hand, the whole "block something that is similar, you'll know it when you(r magical automatic filters) see it part is rather disturbing. Difficult if not impossible to pull off proactively but accurately in our current state of tech/filters.
On the other hand, the whole "block something that is similar, you'll know it when you(r magical automatic filters) see it part is rather disturbing. Difficult if not impossible to pull off proactively but accurately in our current state of tech/filters.
Upvote
11
(36
/
-25)
This.
Fuck Facebook they deserve whatever they get.
But this ruling could be applied to... anything.
Upvote
45
(56
/
-11)
Wait, I'm extremely confused. As mentioned in the article, the same court just ruled that the right to be forgotten didn't apply globally for Google.
How on earth are these two decisions not contradictory? Can someone flesh out the legal distinctions?
edit: nehinks has a good possible explainer. Still a real iffy distinction for radically different outcomes IMO
How on earth are these two decisions not contradictory? Can someone flesh out the legal distinctions?
edit: nehinks has a good possible explainer. Still a real iffy distinction for radically different outcomes IMO
Upvote
7
(11
/
-4)
Somebody failed to think through the implications of this ruling. We’re not quite one world government just yet; this isn’t going to work in the world we inhabit today.
Upvote
39
(43
/
-4)
Didn't an EU court just rule the opposite for the "Right to be Forgotten" in search results (in favor of Google)? Doesn't that mean these two rulings directly contradict each other?
Upvote
0
(8
/
-8)
Don't worry, they will figure out what they did wrong the day China wins a lawsuit (filed in Peking) against a European company that has a presence in China for publishing news in Europe damaging to the party ... Hong Kong protests say ... and enforces it EU wide citing this court's decision as the legal basis for the authority of Chinese courts to use Chinese law to censor European news providers in The EU.
Upvote
101
(105
/
-4)
The real question comes down to whether this is intended to apply because the content could simply be accessed from the EU, or intended to apply because Facebook does business in the EU.
My understanding of it is it rests more in the latter, but I could be wrong.
Upvote
20
(22
/
-2)
EU says the power of national courts extends beyond their legal jurisdiction. Expect to have courts that EU does not control cite that ruling
Even if they claim it only applies to EU courts, the instant counterclaim is that the foreign court is only attempting to enforce their ruling in a jurisdiction that has a stated policy of worldwide legal jurisdiction ... such authority of course needs to be reciprocal if they honestly expect foreign courts to honor their orders.
Upvote
52
(55
/
-3)
Are EU courts different than in the US? Is it really their responsibility to "think things through"?
We want courts to interpret the law as written, even if it's fucked up. Especially if it's fucked up. Then you can blame the true source, the people who wrote the laws.
Upvote
24
(37
/
-13)
I mean, with that attitude we all end up with basically a segregated internet or everyone gets filtered at the lowest common denominator. If every company has to filter all of their content for any country they are in, most will probably just start applying all laws from any country they work in equally to all of us. Considering the level of bat-shit insane laws coming out of even a relatively benign EU (ie: just stupid not evil ala China/Iran, etc...), that is not good.
Upvote
38
(42
/
-4)
It works in the Chinese market. Of course China was smart enough not to try to enforce Chinese rule outside territory they control.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
As a Canadian we often discuss such things among ourselves when the US imposes its will yet again. Of course the answer is no. Now people in the US get to experience what it's like to be Canadian.
Upvote
17
(47
/
-30)
Justitia - Lady Justice - appears to have exchanged the balance scales for a whip.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
Facebook, as a US company, should just ignore this until a senior US court tells them to obey it. If the EU orders its ISPs not to permit users to see Facebook then I suspect the millions of users in the EU will soon get that changed in some countries and suppliers of VPNs will make some money.
If Facebook gets sued and loses in a EU country they should just close down any offices there and not pay.
If Facebook gets sued and loses in a EU country they should just close down any offices there and not pay.
Upvote
1
(27
/
-26)
Not saying it's good, but "boo hoo that country is throwing its weight around and forcing us to follow its laws" always makes me giggle coming from America.
Upvote
-8
(49
/
-57)
No.
If you take the set of all possible restrictions from all countries and then apply them world-wide, there is almost nothing left that you can do or say.
Upvote
53
(55
/
-2)
Upvote
35
(37
/
-2)
All of facebook being blocked would probably be a good thing to be fair.
If you look at the case, there is a sort of logic (though I disagree with the result). The defamatory statement was made in the EU, about an EU citizen - if the statement was unlawful and defamatory then it shouldn't be amplified out to the wider world - otherwise the law actually gives you very little protection. It does sort of follow, and they're telling a European operation (Facebook's European arm) to cease distributing the claim.
Where it falls down though, is the extra-terriritoriality of the filtering. It's no better when a EU court does it than when a US court tries to claim it's decision stands in Ireland.
Facebook EU can be told not to distribute it further including outside the EU - thats fine, it sits logically and it's enforceable. Its the filters that are the issue, if Facebook US decide not to implement, then they're outside of jurisdiction, and squeezing the EU subsidiary in retribution just doesn't feel just. It's not like the EU ops get a say in what Facebook deploys in Asia (for example)
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
No Google was not required to remove content that was not in the possession of Google. Google is only banned from listing the material in search results sent to a computer that location data shows to be in an EU country.
Facebook is being required to remove content that is in the possession of Facebook
Similar, but the possession of source material is an important difference.
Also Google is not barred from listing the banned result outside The EU.
The court wants Facebook to remove content they possess anywhere in the world on the grounds that Facebook operates in the EU.
Upvote
31
(31
/
0)
Upvote
-3
(20
/
-23)
I'm not sure that Facebook pulling out of Europe is even a theoretical option. Even it they were to block those IP addresses, getting around an IP block is rather easy. In addition, with VPN services they might not even know where a specific user is located.
That and what about sites that don't try to service the EU but are still reachable there? Are they going to start issuing summons to people and companies in other countries? Will they actually try to extradite them?
I wonder if this will be bumped up to the world court?
That and what about sites that don't try to service the EU but are still reachable there? Are they going to start issuing summons to people and companies in other countries? Will they actually try to extradite them?
I wonder if this will be bumped up to the world court?
Upvote
-12
(0
/
-12)
That's... uh... not a good way to do business. It is a good way to get your assets seized and ruin your employees livelihoods though.
Sane people do not play that kind of game. The sort of people who'd play that kind of games as the head of a large employer belong in prison
Upvote
2
(22
/
-20)
Absolutely horrifying. I thought the "Right To Forcefully Destroy Other People's Memories" (aka 'right to be forgotten') was bad, but it is their territory. No country has as strong Free Speech laws as the USA already, and if the EU wishes to try to censor their own people or data within their own sovereign space that way it is regrettable but up them. But not even our worst enemies have presumed to try to directly outright censor information within America itself. I don't even really know what to say, it's in many ways worse than the likes of China doing it because Europe are such close allies and shares so much. It's like being stabbed in the back. Both America and Europe have made plenty of mistakes along the way for sure, but even so there is so much shared history, outlook, culture, values, and mutual economic/strategic support and development. How could they possibly presume this would be OK? This is really shocking. Yet another time to be utterly depressed we have such fucking unqualified person in the office of POTUS right now because this really does justify serious repercussions right away, but it will have to wait.
Upvote
-18
(18
/
-36)
Anyone else feel like this is like a Greek guy suing the National Enquirer for slander in a court in Greece?
Good luck enforcing that, E.U. They only way it happens is erecting your own Great Wall, and I'm sure your citizens will appreciate that.
Good luck enforcing that, E.U. They only way it happens is erecting your own Great Wall, and I'm sure your citizens will appreciate that.
Upvote
-7
(6
/
-13)
Note the distinction of it involving doing business.
There's a difference between simply having content up on the web, and actively doing business with citizens of a given country.
I'm pretty sure that if you don't have a business presence in the EU, even the EU wouldn't consider this to apply, but I'd have to read it more deeply.
Upvote
4
(9
/
-5)