Keeping things published online is an ongoing choice
January 31, 2024 12:52 AM Subscribe
The upshot: Readers in America, where prior restraint is forbidden and where courts won’t enforce foreign rulings that violate the First Amendment, are blocked from reading a story based on a legal complaint that would be tossed out of most American courts. That’s not the only way the case is resonating in the U.S. from How a Judge in India Prevented Americans From Seeing a Blockbuster Report
No comment on the legal side, but as someone who had to subscribe to a VPN service to keep reading the numerous US sites that went "sorry, but it's too hard for us to comply with GDPR so we're just going to block access to the content from your region" over the past few years, this is kind of delicious.
posted by terretu at 3:52 AM on January 31 [16 favorites]
posted by terretu at 3:52 AM on January 31 [16 favorites]
shoe, foot
posted by nofundy at 4:04 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
posted by nofundy at 4:04 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
I was thinking that there must be a saved copy online somewhere, but I don't know how to find it. I'd need a url for one of the Archive sites.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 5:48 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 5:48 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
The article is online at the website for Distributed Denial of Secrets. It is worth the read. I was led to it by the linked article the subject of this post
posted by JohnnyGunn at 6:36 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 6:36 AM on January 31 [3 favorites]
US laws should stay behind US borders.
How is this about US laws? To me, is about companies pulling content in the US based on rulings that should affect only India. The article notes Reuters could have geofenced the article, but instead choose to pull it down everywhere. That seems to be a really bad precedent. It allows the justice system of any country to determine what the rest of the entire world can see.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:44 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
How is this about US laws? To me, is about companies pulling content in the US based on rulings that should affect only India. The article notes Reuters could have geofenced the article, but instead choose to pull it down everywhere. That seems to be a really bad precedent. It allows the justice system of any country to determine what the rest of the entire world can see.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 6:44 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Here's a link to the Reuters article on Distributed Denial of Secrets for your browsing convenience.
posted by Reverend John at 7:09 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
posted by Reverend John at 7:09 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]
chavenet, this is a fascinating article, as is the original Reuters report it links to. I am glad to have read it so thank you for bringing it to our attention.
The cyberespionage firm and its offshoots and descendants have, in particular, allegedly been involved in subverting journalism by spying on at least one reporter (for a US-based newspaper) and their source. So that's another reason why being able to read reportage about them is important.
As a person with family ties in India I am aware that if I piss off Indian nationalists they have a range of unpleasant tactics at their disposal, and I would not be surprised if some of the victims of these intrusions were people inside or outside of India who have come to the attention of those elements.
posted by brainwane at 7:34 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
The cyberespionage firm and its offshoots and descendants have, in particular, allegedly been involved in subverting journalism by spying on at least one reporter (for a US-based newspaper) and their source. So that's another reason why being able to read reportage about them is important.
As a person with family ties in India I am aware that if I piss off Indian nationalists they have a range of unpleasant tactics at their disposal, and I would not be surprised if some of the victims of these intrusions were people inside or outside of India who have come to the attention of those elements.
posted by brainwane at 7:34 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
I agree that the ruling is a terrible one, but frankly, US laws should stay behind US borders.
The article linked to this post is literally, literally, about how this can no longer happen. I suggest you read it.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 8:24 AM on January 31 [7 favorites]
The article linked to this post is literally, literally, about how this can no longer happen. I suggest you read it.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 8:24 AM on January 31 [7 favorites]
How is this about US laws?Khare enlisted a US law firm to send nastygrams to US organizations. He is following US laws and procedure, and utilizing the system as designed.
But let's leave that aside.
Many countries allow publications bans of ongoing trials. To demand otherwise is to apply American standards (i.e.: the first amendment) outside of US borders.
It doesn't really seem that way as this is an area of practice that the US pioneered and normalized:
- There's the CLOUD act, which compels US businesses to comply with domestic warrants for internationally stored data, regardless of the legal implications where that data may be stored. AFAIK this applies to subsidiaries as well.
- The US maintains that domestic law applies to gambling sites accessible to Americans and has not been shy about seizing assets (UIGEA).
- The US claims that any exchange made in US currency is subject to US laws (FCPA).
- The US requires foreign banks to audit their customers for American connections (FATCA).
- Going back further, the Helms–Burton act makes it illegal to do business with foreign business that trades with Cuba. Even if that trade is legal otherwise. Even if those businesses have no US presence.
Any US institution handwringing about extraterritorial implications is... hypocritical or ignorant.
posted by TheHuntForBlueMonday at 8:44 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
Huh, even the Internet Archive pulled one of the articles. They are very resistant to doing that, it must have been some compelling threats. Full statement in the Politico article but the nut of it is "keeping the article available and risking having legal action taken against us, and incurring a costly defense in an unfamiliar venue". That makes it sound like it's Indian law and Indian courts they are concerned about, not US.
The "well the US does this too" comments are unbecoming. We have some of the most effective freedom of press laws and constitution in the world. Yes, there are occasional abuses. And plenty of commercial censorship (such as every TV show or movie involving China). And yes, we extend US jurisdiction in other ways, including with financial controls. But in general we take freedom of the press here seriously and it's worth defending.
posted by Nelson at 8:53 AM on January 31 [9 favorites]
The "well the US does this too" comments are unbecoming. We have some of the most effective freedom of press laws and constitution in the world. Yes, there are occasional abuses. And plenty of commercial censorship (such as every TV show or movie involving China). And yes, we extend US jurisdiction in other ways, including with financial controls. But in general we take freedom of the press here seriously and it's worth defending.
posted by Nelson at 8:53 AM on January 31 [9 favorites]
Here's a link to the Reuters article on Distributed Denial of Secrets for your browsing convenience.
And fwiw, DDoSecrets has an advisory on their page which reads:
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 9:08 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
And fwiw, DDoSecrets has an advisory on their page which reads:
DDoSecrets is the most important and most active public library of hacked and leaked datasets in the world today, but we're completely out of money. If we don't raise $150,000 by January 31, 2024, we might be forced to suspend operations.So donate and/or read while you can, I guess.
posted by The Pluto Gangsta at 9:08 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
Or the US handwringing about extraterritorial implications is from a position of in-recent-years untested privilege. We basically run the show now but that is not a position etched into the firmament by the hand of god.
Citizenship-based taxation is truly wild given our founding mythos and everything to do with Cuba is just the "are we the baddies?" sketch.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:09 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
Citizenship-based taxation is truly wild given our founding mythos and everything to do with Cuba is just the "are we the baddies?" sketch.
posted by Slackermagee at 9:09 AM on January 31 [2 favorites]
Oh, freedom of the press is worth defending. But so is international sovereignty. Both issues are in play here. But let's tease them out a little.
The first issue: The Indian publication ban. This is entirely within their rights. And it should affect only organizations that do business in India.
The second issue: The US nastygrams. This is where the US has a legitimate place to intercede: build shield laws to protect American journalists from foreign gag orders. In fact, that would have prevented Khare's cease and desist letters in the first place. Any publisher with ties to India (like Reuters) would still be subject to the original order but it would not have affected the other outlets.
Clearly US journalists don't expect US courts to protect them from foreign rulings. That's a legitimate problem that can be directly addressed within the US. It's not an Indian problem. It's not a gag order problem.
But the outraged response to this isn't just "India should not have press bans".
It's not even "The US doesn't protect journalists".
It's "Indian laws are being applied in America".
An accusation framed as a violation of American sovereignty. And that is what is provoking some pique. Not only is it false -- Khare is working within the US legal system -- but the US is known for applying pressure in exactly this way.
posted by TheHuntForBlueMonday at 9:48 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
The first issue: The Indian publication ban. This is entirely within their rights. And it should affect only organizations that do business in India.
The second issue: The US nastygrams. This is where the US has a legitimate place to intercede: build shield laws to protect American journalists from foreign gag orders. In fact, that would have prevented Khare's cease and desist letters in the first place. Any publisher with ties to India (like Reuters) would still be subject to the original order but it would not have affected the other outlets.
Clearly US journalists don't expect US courts to protect them from foreign rulings. That's a legitimate problem that can be directly addressed within the US. It's not an Indian problem. It's not a gag order problem.
But the outraged response to this isn't just "India should not have press bans".
It's not even "The US doesn't protect journalists".
It's "Indian laws are being applied in America".
An accusation framed as a violation of American sovereignty. And that is what is provoking some pique. Not only is it false -- Khare is working within the US legal system -- but the US is known for applying pressure in exactly this way.
posted by TheHuntForBlueMonday at 9:48 AM on January 31 [6 favorites]
I'm so old I can remember when Americans weren't free to read most of what Solzhenitsyn had written in his life, because he was living in a place where he could publish it only clandestinely, in mimeograph, to be distributed hand-to-hand.
The problem that authoritarians can deprive the whole world of something is not new. To understate a bit.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:35 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
The problem that authoritarians can deprive the whole world of something is not new. To understate a bit.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 10:35 AM on January 31 [4 favorites]
Dismissing this as both sides, news at 11, misses the bigger point of how this is being used to chill publishing of unfavorable information generally. I can't find them right now, but there have been related previouslies about e.g. British libel laws being used strategically to prevent publication of books, etc.elsewhere.
posted by blue shadows at 11:20 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
posted by blue shadows at 11:20 PM on January 31 [3 favorites]
The new thing with the internet is the global reach of the censorship. Any media organization with a footprint in an authoritarian regime is now bound by that regime’s whims everywhere. The alternative in this case is for Reuters to leave India.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:23 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:23 AM on February 1 [1 favorite]
A Startup Allegedly ‘Hacked the World.’ Then Came the Censorship—and Now the Backlash [Wired]
Sorry Appin, We’re Not Taking Down Our Article About Your Attempts To Silence Reporters [TechDirt]
posted by chavenet at 2:02 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Sorry Appin, We’re Not Taking Down Our Article About Your Attempts To Silence Reporters [TechDirt]
posted by chavenet at 2:02 PM on February 1 [1 favorite]
Behind the Bastards.
More background, more details.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:23 AM on February 7
More background, more details.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 7:23 AM on February 7
Part 2 from Behind the Bastards. Real discussion starts at 4:38. Lots about censorship, the ecology of hacking for hire (like private investigators just hiring the work done), and social engineering.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:13 PM on February 8
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 11:13 PM on February 8
« Older That's no moon | Spider webs can capture DNA from passing large... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I agree that the ruling is a terrible one, but frankly, US laws should stay behind US borders.posted by prismatic7 at 3:04 AM on January 31 [5 favorites]