Google Rejects French Order For 'Right To Be Forgotten' 330
Last month, French data protection agency CNIL ordered Google to comply with the European "right to be forgotten" order by delisting certain search results not just on the European versions of Google's search engine, but on all versions. Google has now publicly rejected that demand. CNIL has promised a response, and it's likely the case will go before local courts. Google says,
This is a troubling development that risks serious chilling effects on the web. While the right to be forgotten may now be the law in Europe, it is not the law globally. Moreover, there are innumerable examples around the world where content that is declared illegal under the laws of one country, would be deemed legal in others: Thailand criminalizes some speech that is critical of its King, Turkey criminalizes some speech that is critical of Ataturk, and Russia outlaws some speech that is deemed to be "gay propaganda." If the CNIL's proposed approach were to be embraced as the standard for Internet regulation, we would find ourselves in a race to the bottom. In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place.
May you (Score:2, Insightful)
Missing the big picture (Score:5, Interesting)
Even more so, seems silly that the remedy to a false accusation is to delist a page from a search result. Seems that libel statues would apply that you should direct at the content publisher not the search engine.
The world will be a much scarier place if we don't have freedom of speech because some people could tell lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Every country wants their laws to apply to everyone else, but doesn't think of the consequences then of having to apply everyone else's laws to themselves.
It's easy to avoid such consequences with a large enough military budget. Or why else would Google filter European search results referring to the DMCA?
Re: (Score:2)
Every country wants their laws to apply to everyone else, but doesn't think of the consequences then of having to apply everyone else's laws to themselves.
It's easy to avoid such consequences with a large enough military budget. Or why else would Google filter European search results referring to the DMCA?
Wth does the military have to do with it?
Re: (Score:2)
But it would be naive to not consider the ramifications beyond. It could mean that search results for Tienanmen Square or Falun Gong could be missing world wide because Chinese law bans results for those pages in their jurisdiction.
Yes, but only if google wants to do business in China. Frankly, China could demand that either way with the price being either STFU or GTFO. Personally, I'd say the best choice would be to GTFO.
The world will be a much scarier place if we don't have freedom of speech because som
Re: (Score:2)
Seems that libel statues would apply that you should direct at the content publisher not the search engine.
The fact that someone was accused/arrested/went to trial for some offence is not libel or slander; it is a fact. There is no way libel/slander laws can take down facts. The judgement someone else makes based on that fact can be a problem. For some people a mere accusation is enough to create a negative judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
From a US perspective, perhaps. But truth is not a defense in Europe, even for public figures (who thus use censorship to protect their power by preventing criticism.)
The legal power to silence criticism is at the core of the absolutist nature of the First Amendment. Government doesn't get to decide what kinds of criticism are permitted, by them, the people in power with police behind them.
Re: (Score:2)
According to TFA, it's about the TLD: something censored from google.fr, .de is not censored from google.com, even if requested from an EU IP address. It's not about censoring search results on google.com for a for a user located in the US. It is not about where the data centers serving those TLDs are located and whether they are owned by a EU-based subsidiary or not. Google could easily serve all those TLDs from the same ip address and data center if they wanted, but that is not the point.
We can agree or n
Re:Missing the big picture (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Let Paris implement its own Grand mur de la France, behind which it can spend what it takes on a search engine with a Forget Me feature.
Re:May you (Score:5, Insightful)
Ain't necessary. In France, Google does actually filter the results.
Implementing such a thing would not accomplish anything.
France wishes to enforce its laws outside of France. And that's something they lack the aircraft carriers for.
Re: (Score:3)
Let Paris implement its own Grand mur de la France, behind which it can spend what it takes on a search engine with a Forget Me feature.
France did try building a Grand mur de la France once, of course, but then the Germans just went around it. Google search results are already filtered in France as needed to comply with French law, but France seems to be upset here that the Germans (or French with a VPN) are getting around it. Somehow, I don't think they'll learn this time, either.
Re:May you (Score:4, Insightful)
And let's also hope that nobody ever actually commits rape and gets caught and convicted.
Censorship is always a two-edged sword. I have never heard of any form of censorship where you couldn't rightly cite some examples where it's a good idea, but freedom-lovers can play the examples game too.
Loose lips sink ships, but the king is taxing us unfairly. Which side are you on?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
never be falsely be accused of rape.
So what? You WERE accused of rape. That's not going away, it's part of history. Any sensible person and most insensible people know the difference between being accused of something and actually being convicted for it. And if you actually were convicted for it, then deal with it.
Re:May you (Score:4, Insightful)
The theoretical world is a nice place to live in, if you can find a way to do it... But here in the real world, things aren't always ideal.
Re: (Score:3)
it's part of history. Any sensible person and most insensible people know the difference between being accused of something and actually being convicted for it.
Maybe "sensible" people recognize that distinction.
But, be honest here -- if you were a young woman, and you searched for a guy you were considering dating and saw he had been "accused of" rape, would you go out with him? Would you even bother asking for his story? Or would just say, "Uh... no thanks"?
If you were in charge of hiring someone for a position, and you did a search and saw a guy was "accused of" rape, would you think twice about hiring the guy? If you had 50 applicants for the job, wouldn
Re: (Score:3)
In all likelihood, the convicted rapist couldn't get their names removed anyways since its in the public's best interest to know, but hell slashdot thinks the whole law is a rubber stamp, so whatev's. Well, it really depends on the laws of the land, because sometimes countries allow for long-ago rapists' records to be expunged, so maybe right-to-be-forgotten would eventually kick in for 'reformed' rapists.
Re: (Score:2)
If people believes it because it's on the net...
We have already seen that information have been cut off from the search results due to copyright claims or for being "unsafe". This is a slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases this will have an impact on you inside your country. There, it is filtered.
If you have to deal with foreign parties for some reason, this usually also means that you're dealing with people who know better than to trust some sources just 'cause it's on the net.
Didn't realize Ms Streisand was French (Score:4, Insightful)
Once upon a time, when most of us lived in smallish villages, ALL your neighbors knew your business - the only way to have anonymity was to leave town, which was difficult and dangerous. Now everyone's village spans the globe, and leaving is even more difficult and dangerous. I value anonymity, which I maintain by seeming as average as possible.
Re:Didn't realize Ms Streisand was French (Score:5, Interesting)
Incidentally, this was also why people were so wary of outsiders: because they lacked a known history attesting to their character, and because one always wondered what incentive had caused them to favour the uncertainties of leaving their town to venture elsewhere. It is also the root origin of patronymics.
In several credited (*cough*) theories it is also the origin of money: allowing people deemed to be “credit risks” (which is to say, without a known history nor a certainty of future reciprocation) to engage in transactions.
Just sayin’.
Good (Score:3, Insightful)
"Right to be forgotten" is just a cover-up tool used by elites to wipe their messes off then net. Censorship is censorship, whatever euphemism you invent to rationalize it. Just another terrible idea that I hope stays isolated to Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just how anonymous are those of us who have screen names?
Push comes to shove sooner or later... (Score:4, Insightful)
Google already has no presence China (and arguably for noble reasons -- they didn't feel like giving up lists of dissidents).
I wonder if the same thing will happen in France, if not the entire EU. They can shut down Google's presence there and jail all employees, but the data can be replicated offshore, making all the right to be forgotten laws a moot point.
Wonder who will win. Ultimately, can Google lose the EU for a market as they did China?
Companies are made of people with rights (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a worry that there is a fight between a company and the people of several countries and that it is even contemplated that the company and not the people, has some rights.
If companies have no rights there is no reason for them to exist at all. Since companies are almost entirely responsible for the economic well being of the world, you should seriously consider the practicality of your position. Just because some country comes up with some loony irrational law doesn't mean that the rest of us living in other countries should have to live with it. Should I have to respect the Chinese government's position on Tienanmen Square when I live in the US? Because that is EXACTLY what you are arguing for.
In this instance Google is right. There is no way they could respect ridiculous laws like this one globally. If the people of France are uncomfortable with that then that is their problem and they have no right to make it the problem of the rest of the world.
If it is between the people and anybody else, some countries even pretend to talk about "We, the people ..." and they should ALWAYS be priority number one. If it is inconvinient for a company, fuck that.
Those very same people work in the companies you are so quick to dismiss. Companies are nothing more than a collection of people working together. So because people work in a company their rights no longer matter? Thank goodness you aren't in charge of anything if that is what you really think.
Re: (Score:2)
It is bad for society to allow people to control public information about them.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed a very important question. When do the laws of one country trump the rights of the people in another country? Why should the censorship laws of China trump the freedom of speech in Canada? Not all countries have the same views on freedom.
If it is between the people and anybody else, some countries even pretend to talk about "We, the people ..." and they should ALWAYS be priority number one.
I agree that the people should be number one within their country. That does not mean the restrictive views of the people of one country should override the more open views of a second country within that second country.
If it is inconvinient for a company, fuck that.
It has nothing to do with inconvenience. It
Red Herring (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what the French are asking for.
Re:Red Herring (Score:4, Insightful)
It's absolutely unreasonable to demand that Google, or any other search engine, take down these listings... or any listing at all... whether it's in .fr .com .uk.co or anywhere else.
If the content is libelous, defamatory, or otherwise illegal, the proper legal steps should be followed to have said content taken down at the source. And the next time the Google runs its spider, it will vanish from the index. What France is trying to do is shuffle the responsibilities of its own courts off onto Google and demanding that they perform those services for free an ineffectively (Since the banned content is still there.) And that's aside from the fact that in many cases, they're demanding that Google delist content that is not, in fact, libel or defamation.
Re:Red Herring (Score:4, Interesting)
The original complaint was a Spaniard who had filed bankruptcy quite a few years earlier. By Spanish law, that information could not be used any more in financial decisions about him, but a Google search brought it up. The court ordered Google to not associate the Spaniard's name with the information. Removing the notice of bankruptcy would have caused worse problems.
In many cases in many European countries, information about certain things is considered no longer usable for decisions. This allows people to have solid second chances at putting their lives together, an idea that seems foreign to the US. It doesn't work if the information in question comes up in a Google search of the person's name.
There is good reasoning behind the "right to be forgotten" requests (although the system is abusable).
Re: (Score:3)
Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
"In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place."
No, it would be even less free than that. It would be the intersection of the freedoms in all places, which is a subset of the freedoms in the least free place.
Correct me if I'm wrong.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think that's what France is trying to point out here.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's the big hole in "Right To Be Forgotten." You can't apply one country's (or a group of countries') laws against the entire Internet. Russia can't demand that US hosted pro-gay rights materials be taken down because they violate Russia's anti-gay laws and France can't demand that Google's United States website delist pages because French courts decided that those pages should be forgotten. For better or worse, you can't just demand that the entire Internet forget about you.
Exporting censorship (Score:2)
I thought the whole idea behind the 'right to be forgotten' was that google would 'forget' who you were. If they only forget you in the EU(search results come up as 0), but still have all the data on you (serach indexes, etc) then you haven't been forgotten have you?
I think that's what France is trying to point out here.
And what France is missing is that their precious "right to be forgotten" is ridiculous and unenforceable. It's effectively an attempt to export censorship. No private sector company could reasonably follow that silly law without entirely gutting their business in the process. France has NO right to prevent me from searching for data here in the US just like I don't really think China should have the right to censor what I read outside of their country. They are trying to put toothpaste back in the tube
And yet, Google does censor (Score:2, Insightful)
Google already censors the web according to US laws and preferences. They're constantly taking down links to child pornography. They take down links to copyrighted content. They're even taking down links to revenge porn now. This isn't a principled stand. Google doesn't want to comply with the European law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Child pornography is almost universally illegal throughout the world. Certainly sexual exploitation laws vary throughout the world, given that children can legally marry in some countries (sigh). I don't know a single Country that allows distribution of said material, though it would add value to the discussion for the interested scholar.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, that information is not really privileged info.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Everything everyone does is part of history.
Actually, that's not at all true, at least in the meaning of "history" before the internet. History is traditionally a narrative created about the past, usually derived from reliable sources (or at least what were considered reliable by the author of the narrative). A random recollection of some dude about some other dude was not "history" -- it was "gossip" at best. It only became "history" if someone wrote down the account and gave it credibility.
In the past, reliable records about the vast majority
Re: (Score:2)
There's also no natural laws for right to life, speech, privacy, property, etc.. but we have laws to enforce them. I think a you need a better argument, like the actual material harm to society if you want anyone outside of the fringe to listen to you. Yes, I'm addressing you, not the topic at hand specifically.
Regarding the actual point you made in the end, the law apparently has some form of distinction between privacy and the information in the public's interest, so depending on the implementation of sai
It doesn't remove it from the Internet (Score:2)
Privacy = Censorship (Score:2)
Privacy = Censorship
I love when Slashdot ideals conflict. Big brother already won !
This isn't about anonimity (Score:2, Insightful)
magic unicorn wipe public information law (Score:2)
it is a feel-good, empty band aid law for technologically illiterate people
1. you can easily circumvent it by accessing google with a vpn in another country, which is second nature for anyone vaguely aware. if that employer or possible date looks you up, it takes 15 seconds more effort. they will do it. they won't blindly accept and abide by the censorial coddling of the EU like good little citizens
2. any employer or date who will disregard you for stupid shit you did as a teenager is no one you want to dat
Re: (Score:2)
I can get paid under the table and the gov can't stop me
I can cross borders and buy there to avoid local taxes
Just because I can avoid the rules doesn't mean the rules aren't important. Maybe eventually the majority of the world will agree on rules and there won't be places for cheating the system to happen, but something tells my that is your worst case scenario.
"Well, the creeper took nude pics of me walking around home naked and posted them on the internet. I was pissed until I realized that information
Re: (Score:2)
you completely miss the point
laws exist with philosophical and moral validity, like against murder, and without philosophical and moral validity, like against marijuana
history is replete with people disobeying stupid and useless laws, and forcing change. civil disobedience. just because a law exists you blindly follow it without thought?
Re: (Score:2)
1. that's never going to happen
2. i'm not allowed to talk about the philosophical bankruptcy of the concept behind the law?
in which case, i apologize: i did not know you had conversation topic authority here. or maybe you don't and you should try contributing to the topic or ignoring my comment. but acting like you're my father just tells us you are probably compensating for some social deficit in real life, and that i want to borrow your car keys. your comment is without merit
Re: (Score:2)
I do know: the French can't pass a law that censors information in the USA. It's not going to happen. Ever. I will bet my life on that.
Which they should do, and is a completely unrelated topic.
Why is it always Gogle? (Score:3)
Where are the other search engines, and why aren't they subjected to the same laws and stuff?
Re: (Score:2)
Google is right. (Score:2)
What you post on the internet, is on the internet. Period. Nothing you can do about it. When someone else posts a private pic of you on the internet, bad luck, no way to remove it. Go sue the person for damages.
I'm in Europe. "Europe" does not have a law that gives you the right to be not on Google. Some countries in Europe have, like the French. Soon, the French will have a law that says the internet can only be in French.
Want to be forgotten? (Score:2)
Join the French Foreign Legion.
Less Free Than Stated (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction: The Internet would only be as free as the intersection of all least free places. Anything that is forbidden anywhere would be forbidden everywhere.
Worse (Score:2)
"In the end, the Internet would only be as free as the world's least free place."
Less free. The internet would only be as free as the union of of the most restrictive policies across jurisdictions. This would be at least as restrictive as the most restrictive individual jurisdiction, probably more.
Requisite Reference (Score:2)
I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty-headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Let's just go to the bottom now (Score:3)
This ends up with the Internet being challenged by the least free nation ON ANY GIVEN SITUATION to restrict data or access based on that nation's restrictions.
And that would force less restrictive nations to comply.
Or not.
I vote not. Let nations that cannot tolerate the freedom of others to deal with the problem at their borders.
And leave the rest alone.
This is worth fighting for.
its time for (Score:2)
EU must protect its citizens, The great firewall of EU will now be implemented :)
yayyy
Dear France (Score:2)
Of course you have a right to be forgotten. We'll start with your politicians.
entering "Francois Hollande" into google...
searching ...
no results for your request. Did you mean "french hollandaise"?
Unintended consequences... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From Wiki:
>> In 2003–2004, the European Commission investigated the bundling of Windows Media Player into Windows, a practice which rivals complained was destroying the market for their own products.[citation needed] Negotiations between Microsoft and the Commission broke down in March 2004, and the company was subsequently handed down a record fine of €497 million ($666 million) for its breaches of EU competition law.[citation needed] Separate investigations into alleged abuses of the serv
Re: (Score:2)
You can violate Russia's anti-gay-propaganda law today, if you wish, with no repercussion to yourself whatsoever. No incorporation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
And the French court's decision essentially would mean that we would all need to abide by Russia's anti-gay propaganda laws while online despite not living in Russia. Other countries have tried applying their laws to the Internet as a whole and they always fail. You can apply your laws within your borders, but you can't declare that EVERYONE needs to follow your rules no matter where they live.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be silly of the French, but it is within their rights to tell google to leave the country or abide by the rules.
Re:When do I get to be a multinational corp? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you agree that you should be able to be charged under Thai laws for criticizing their king? Or Saudi laws for blasphemy?
Or do you understand there are such things as jurisdiction, and Google is saying "we reject your assertion of extra-territorial jurisdiction"?
Unless you think your posts on the internet should be under the jurisdiction of every piss-pot dictator on the planet, what the hell do you expect from Google?
Google is doing the right thing here. French courts have the right to make decisions on what happens in France. They sure as fuck don't have the right to tell Google what to do in every other country. The world doesn't work that way.
If that was true, we'd all be under Sharia law or whatever country mostly loudly decided its laws applied globally.
You enjoy the same protections as Google ... if in your home country France sends you a letter telling you that you must comply with French law ... you too can tell them to fuck off. Unless of course you live in France.
Do you really think that France has the right to dictate the behavior of the entire internet? If so, you're a fool.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless you think your posts on the internet should be under the jurisdiction of every piss-pot dictator on the planet, what the hell do you expect from Google?
No, I certainly don't, but while google wants to do business in those countries, it's going to be subject to their laws whether it likes it or not. If google wasn't going business with those pisspot dictators and had no representation in their country, they'd be unable to do anything to google.
The only reason in this case that google is subject to the
Re:When do I get to be a multinational corp? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstand. I'm not arguiong right or wrong here.
The French governmant can literally ask for whatever they want. And while google has a presence in the country they can enforce their demands on the portion of google residing in France.
The choice is therefore to behave globally in a way the French find acceptable or never do any business in France at all. Such things are in fact not without precedent. For example the UK has anti bribery laws, and they're specified in such a way that they can traverse
Re: (Score:2)
No, there's hell to pay if said executives ever enter british controlled soil or are extradited. I'm not sure if the company in question's assets would be siezed pending trial, but I suppose that depends on the teeth of the laws in question.
Assuming that Google is actually in material breach of the law, then yes. They influence the laws, submit to the order (effectively giving up all right of control over their content internationally) or do like they did in China and completely exit the territory. Trust me
Re: (Score:2)
if french google is a french subsidiary
google.com is american.
on what basis would france kick them out?
google france presumably is in full compliance with the courts, and google.com effectively has no presence in france. can they refuse a company for non-compliance of a partner that the court has no jurisdiction over?
I mean, shouldn't french laws protect french companies from the tyranny of the french government too?
Re: (Score:3)
OK then, lets assume that France gets what it wants from Google & establishes precedent. How do you think France is going to react when Turkey uses it force Google to remove all information on the Armenian Genocide that the French National assembly commemorated a few months ago? Not just on google.tk but also on google.fr?
Hint: French politicians would start claiming that Brussels & the EU forced the precedent upon them just as they have done every time they impose regulations without thinking about
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to misunderstand me. This isn't a question of right or wrong so much as a question of if google wants to operate in France, they have to make their worldwide operations acceptable to the French.
If they don't want to do that, they can choose to give up the huge pile of shiny lucre from the world's 6th largest economy.
Even if they want to maximise revenue it's still a tricky optimization. If they stick to too many global censorship laws they will risk people going elsewhere and therefore lose money.
Re: (Score:3)
Google has a French subsidiary, and they are complying with French laws.
The US version of Google is not subject to French jurisdiction. Trying to make it subject to French jurisdiction would be highly problematic for France, because it would imply that if you own anything in France at
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite the double-edged sword you've got there. That lack of global jurisdiction is used by both the rich and the multinational corps to skirt laws and taxation that are unfavorable to them in their home country. These are the same groups that use treaties to enact local laws that would otherwise be rejected by the populace because treaties skirt the popular vote. Lack of global jurisdiction and global representation is fundamentally reshaping all free countries today.
France doesn't have a right t
Re: (Score:2)
>> While (X) may be the law in (place), it is not the law globally (therefore pound sand)
Wow. And techies thought Microsoft was arrogant when dealing with Europe in the 2000s.
More to the point: how do I get to be a multinational corporation so I can tell local authorities to fuck off too?
I think you are missing a major point of the discussion. Google complies with French law in France. Google complies with EU law in the EU. Google did not want to comply with Chinese law in China, so they left China. The issue is that France is trying to force Google to comply with French law everywhere else. I hope you can see the distinction.
Re:When do I get to be a multinational corp? (Score:4, Insightful)
What Google is essentially saying is "When a user in the US goes to Google.com, he shouldn't get filtered results because a French court said 'Don't include these listings.'" I completely agree with Google here. If you go to Google.fr and the court said "listings for X should be filtered", then Google has no choice but to filter those rulings. (Either that, or get out of France.) The courts of one country, however, shouldn't be allowed to decide what can and can't be shown in other countries, though. If that were the case, then Slashdot would need to take down any comment that mentioned Tiananmen Square because China disapproved and any website talking about gay rights would be nixed because Russia doesn't like that. As the Google statement said, you'd quickly limit what anyone could say online because some country somewhere has probably declared such speech illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"how do I get to be a multinational corporation so I can tell local authorities to fuck off too?"
France is free to make it illegal for its citizens to use Google. This would be the kind of money pit bureacrats love, like British TV licensing.
Google is right (Score:3)
Wow. And techies thought Microsoft was arrogant when dealing with Europe in the 2000s.
The arrogance is entirely on the part of the French government. Google is right. Google cannot possible afford to let each country dictate their business practices (and by extension my use of their services) globally. The French government is making an unreasonable demand to have their particular viewpoint be enforced worldwide by Google. Google is 100% right in telling them to fuck off. That may cost them business in France but if they actually did what France asked they would be effectively unable to
Re: (Score:2)
Look at their losses in WW1 before complaining about their behaviour in WW2.
I don't know what U.S. casualty figures have looked like in the various wars but I doubt they ever reached the 60% France suffered. Then they were supposed to do it all over again because their leaders had been asleep at the wheel. No.
Re: (Score:2)
Those leaders sought to be elected as leaders, then failed to meet their responsibilities. Nobody forced them to run for office.
Re: (Score:2)
No one in Texas, for sure.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
put an airtight dome over austin and leave the rest of us alone
damn wannabe californians.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, peoples being punished for the stupidity of their leaders (leaders that never had to face an election, no less) was the reason why WW2 happened...
Re: (Score:2)
i'd actually like to hear your reasoning on that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why, when I (soon!) become a genocidal conqueror, I will be asking people for their voting records before I line them up against the wall.
Curses! WTF is this "secret ballot" my advisors are bringing up? *sigh* There goes my invasion plan. (If I can't have the executions, then I don't see why to bother.)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
>> internet is not in a country, it is it's own country
Hmmm...I guess you CAN buy weed before 8am.
Re:That's how the law usually works. (Score:4, Informative)
If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England.
That's probably because the Scots are still under English occupation.
If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he MAY NOT be tried in Turkey. See?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know much about Scots history or legal system, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Calling it occupation is nutjobbery. The historically joined it willingly, and they even recently had a vote on independence and decided they didn't want to be.
Re: (Score:2)
If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England.
The main problem is that laws which protect Google's property - especially IP - are global, mostly thanks to international treaties. I would like to see countries where this is not so, and would be keen to find out how Google would feel about that :-).
Barring niche circumstances linking the crime to England, like the Scotsman travelling on official government business, or the raped person being English, or the rapist having a really long dick and so the crime was actually committed on the other side of the English Channel, then I don't believe this is true at all.
Re: (Score:3)
"If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England."
No true Scotsman would commit rape in France.
Re: (Score:3)
If a Scotsman commits rape in France, he may be tried in England.
No true Scotsman would commit rape in France!
Re: (Score:2)
It could be no more free than the least free place, and quite possibly less free than that, yes.
Re: (Score:2)