
Huh ?
The US constitution only applies to the US government. It doesn't apply to private companies.
A US judge has revived a potentially significant anti-censorship lawsuit brought by Stateside pro-democracy activists against Chinese search giant Baidu and the People’s Republic of China. The original complaint was filed by eight New Yorkers back in 2011 in the US District Court in Manhattan. They claimed Baidu, in collusion …
I beg to differ. Companies (as well as the government, itself, and generally anyone geographically residing) inside the borders of the United States and its territories are bound by either contracts with the government or the Constitution. The Constitution very much applies to the states (demonstrated with the Civil War, in spite what some states-rights proponents may think). Companies actually have more rights than citizens, as they cannot be imprisoned for illegal activities (they should be forbidden from selling product or services as an alternate sanction).
@ac 0706 you can beg to differ but you would be wrong. The constitution spells out the mechanisms and limits of government. Your contracts are known as laws and yes they do (obviously) apply to persons and companies. The constituion however only limits the power and reach of government. You have rights under the constituion but you have no obligations.
Now as to the suit in question. They're claiming a breach of the first amendment. This will be dismissed at the first hurdle because there is nothing in the constitution requiring either individuals or companies to respect free speech.
Disclosure: I am against any 'net filtering when not requested by an individual user, for *that* individual user.
Let me get this straight:
A non-USA company not residing in the USA is not producing results that USA companies like. So the USA companies sue this non-USA company in a USA court under USA laws?
Hmmm.... tell you what - how about a couple of lobbies outside of the USA, where there are strict gun-ownership laws, start suing the NRA, US gun manufacturers and USA.gov because there are websites in the US promoting "irresponsible gun ownership". How well do you think that'd go down in the US?
'Merkins!
You haven't been following the UK libel laws closely then? There have been a huge number of libel cases in the UK in recent years where a plaintiff not based in the UK can be sued by someone also not based in the UK for libel just because an article may be accessed from the UK. It's legal tourism and it's not much different from this. Google for "justice eady" to see what's been going on - its fair to say he's a maverick.
Which would have caused a international shit storm guaranteed to make the current NSA spying scandal "child's play" by comparison.
If that were ever to occur, no future President or former President would ever be able to safely leave the country, because they risked arrest somewhere offshore. Don't you think that several countries would like to have "arrested" Bush if they could??? Obama would never take that foolish chance.