There are enough other sites with information on China's civil rights abuses that you should be able to duck Duck Go it ;)
Living in a country with little or no respect for the law and expecting a reasonable outcome is not rational. You cannot extrapolate the experiences of your friends to cover the whole system, you don't have enough data. History shows us that China can be very ruthless in enforcing their idea of laws.
I really recomend you read chinalawblog.com it's a great blog and can give you a picture of the law situation in China, which for some things is better than most think.
That link points in to empty space, and even if it didn't I highly doubt you'll find a single documented case of a foreigner operating a business in China that was jailed, unless they were doing something illegal.
Simply asking for resources with a statement that you'll be forced to leave if you can't work will most likely not result in a jail sentence or even any action at all.
Without proof that's just scaremongering about China.
We all know China has human rights abuses, but if you read the charter on human rights then you'd know that there is almost no single country that does not have their share of that.
Of course I can not extrapolate the experience of my friends to the whole system, but neither can you extrapolate the other way around and say that there is absolutely no reason in China at all and that a mere request would get you punished.
Your first sentence is a circular argument when the state gets to arbitrarily define what's illegal and notoriously includes legally undefined "state secrets" that have extended to basic economic information ... or anything that embarrasses someone in power.
um... last sentence of the introductory blurb:
"The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case.[1]"
I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments, but alot of the arguments and especially analogies you're using in this discussion are intellectually dishonest.
The fact that it was ruled un-constitutional does not take away the fact that this law was in effect for several years.
And it's not the only example of such a law, and not all of them have been ruled un-constitutional.
I don't know what you mean with 'intellectually dishonest', all I'm trying to do is to point out that there is plenty wrong in China but we in the so-called 'free west' have enough beams in our own eyes to preclude us from going all 'oh my' about China without qualifications.
The anti-China sentiment here seems to be for the most part based on media and fear of the unknown rather than on solid facts, and you could make exactly the same case about the US and various other 'free' countries.
I'm all for criticizing human rights violations, but then let's be fair and even handed about it, instead of suggesting that a simple request could get you in trouble with the law in China, which as far as I know from those that I know that live and work in China is simply not true.
I also note that I was the one to step up and actually do something about this particular problem in this particular instance.
Like I said, I don't disagree with most of your sentiments. However, the fact that it was ruled unconstitutional refutes your assertion that it is illegal in the US, when in fact that law itself was determined to be illegal. I'm well aware that free speech in the US is limited, but I'm not aware of any other such draconian limitations that have been determined to be constitutional in the recent past. I would be interested to know about them (or possibly argue with you about them :P) if you cite some.
While I'm painfully aware that the US is at a point on the spectrum far from what I consider to be ideal, that point is very much closer to my ideal than the point China occupies, and even the point most other western democracies occupy (that last was hugely disappointing to me when I realized it).
The comment that struck me as most intellectually dishonest was the parallel you drew between the arrest of the British(?) businessman engaging in business which is illegal in the US, with US customers residing and present in the US when the business was conducted, with the arrest of a US citizen and/or foreign provider of marijuana in which the transaction occurs completely outside of the US where they claim no jurisdiction. To be sure there are many cases in which the US Govt oversteps its jurisdictional boundaries and they are not hard to find, so I found that comparison to be questionable.
Lastly, I saw lower down in the comments that you volunteered your services to the OP and found it admirable, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
Edit: I'm also not sure why you're getting downvoted on valid comments, even if I don't agree with them.
I'm sorry, I keep up as good as I can with US law but every now and then something slips by me. I should have read that piece in its entirety before linking to it, I just wanted to have a reference to the kind of abuse I had in mind.
If you're just as up-to-date to Dutch law as I am on the laws of the United States and you're an American than my hat is off to you ;)
Once again, apologies.
The things that most bother me about the US is the increased collaboration behind the scenes when it comes to telcos and the NSA, most of that is invisible but every now and then you get a glimmer of what's going on and it is simply scary.
Furthermore, the US intelligence services have already at least once in the past used their information to conduct industrial espionage on behalf of a US company abroad (search for enercon).
The fact that any or all of that is in the past makes little or no difference to me, it suggests strongly that there is stuff going down today, just that we won't know about it for a while, if ever.
As for the Marijuana/Betonsports analogy, I think it is perfectly legal, in both cases the United States has nothing to do with what is going on, they are illegally projecting their laws to have effect outside of their borders.
The real reason why this case went down the way it did is not because betting in the US is illegal, the US government would simply like their cut. Here in NL the exact same thing is happening and I'm as much against it as I think betonsports should have been allowed to operate.
A government should not have any say in how a foreign company runs its business.
> Lastly, I saw lower down in the comments that you volunteered your services to the OP and found it admirable, but I fail to see what that has to do with anything.
As for what that has to do with anything, I thought that it showed that I concede there is a problem, but instead of berating the OP for making stupid choices in life (which I think he has not made, even though I suggested that he could move, but that's some of the sentiment above) instead of the 'wise' ones to go and live in a 'free' country instead I chose to act. Talk is cheap.
> I'm also not sure why you're getting downvoted on valid comments, even if I don't agree with them.
As for the downvotes, it goes with the territory, HN used to be the place where you could have an argument and be on the un-popular side of it without a bunch of downvotes but that time is mostly gone.
I agree with you that China and the US are not at the same point when it comes to 'freedom', but both have a long way to go (as do most other countries), and the situation in China is not nearly as bad as some here would have you believe.
I try to keep up with EU technology law, but I'm afraid I only keep up with specifics for individual countries when its widely covered. You can keep your hat on :P
Many things that our intelligence agencies do disturbs me as well, and in fact the policy on the NSA telecom cooperation case as well as other areas where I consider the government to be acting unconstitutionally are my biggest gripe with the Obama administration.
Back to marijuana betonsports: I still disagree. That type of betting is strictly prohibited, and while I think that law should be removed, it is a perfectly valid law to enforce, despite its being driven by a desire for tax revenue and a large dose of hypocrisy. The fact that the provider of the service is not in the US means that they generally will not be gone after as long as they remain outside the US (assuming they are not breaking their own country's laws) unless their own country agrees for some reason that they should be extradited. However once they set foot on US soil the US govt is well within its rights to arrest them. They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction. The appropriate marijuana comparison in my opinion, would be when a US citizen mail ordered marijuana from someone who is allowed to export it under their local laws. Ignoring any illegal actions taken by other people to get the drugs into the US, should the marijuana dealer be immune to arrest when they enter the US?
As far as the "must leave china" comments, I agree, and now I see why you made that comment. I sometimes tend to disconnect specific comments I want to respond to from the larger discussion, so please don't take any comments I made as implicit agreement with the people you're already arguing with. ;)
And I'd tend to say that just about everywhere is much more towards the middle of the freedom spectrum than most people believe. Its just so much easier to think in black and white than all those greys that make up the real world.
> They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction.
I disagree with you there, it was the people in the US that were under US jurisdiction, betonsports was not an American company and so American jurisdiction does not apply to them. The fact that the guy was arrested on a sealed warrant is quite telling, if he was really in violation of the law in his jurisdiction they would have applied for his extradition instead. The US would like its law to extend to all the countries in the world, but in turn does not even allow its citizens to stand trial abroad when for instance accused of war crimes.
Incidentally, I feel the same about France trying to apply its laws to Yahoo! and Ebay, and Italy trying to apply its laws to Google (though, in both cases the company involved did have a presence on the soil of those countries, but said presences were absolutely not involved in the perceived transgressions).
I prefer to see the grays :)
Keeps me sane and stops me from going all out about 'how great' the place where I happen to live is, a bit of perspective is badly needed.
> They did break a US law interacting with people under US jurisdiction. The appropriate marijuana comparison in my opinion, would be when a US citizen mail ordered marijuana from someone who is allowed to export it under their local laws. Ignoring any illegal actions taken by other people to get the drugs into the US, should the marijuana dealer be immune to arrest when they enter the US?
Good question. My point of view would be 'absolutely not'.
And my main reason for feeling that way is that it should not be a requirement of a business abroad to even be aware of all the laws and statues of countries where they are not based when doing business over the internet. If the bets were legal in England it doesn't matter whether a US person visits in person or the transaction takes place online.
The drugs scenario you describe is being acted out every day by the way.
>The drugs scenario you describe is being acted out every day by the way.
Thats why I used it. And it makes those dealers criminals in the US. I didn't mean he was under US jurisdiction when he broke the law, I meant he broke a US law which had effect in the US where the law applies. The US acknowledges that he did not break the local law where he was at the time, but he was one half of an action (or actually I guess millions of actions) that was in violation of US law and took effect under US jurisdiction. I can't remember what it is called, but someone in a reddit or HN discussion a few weeks ago introduced me to the legal concept whereby being a party to such a transaction extends personal jurisdiction to include you. Since he was not breaking UK law he could not be extradited, but once he was on US soil he could be arrested for the crime he committed.
I was discussing at work the other day how I am what I described as an "internet libertarian" so I'm also opposed to all of those laws being enforced against actions on the internet, but I don't dispute the legal right they have to do it.
>it should not be a requirement of a business abroad to even be aware of all the laws and statues of countries where they are not based
Unfortunately, as with laws in most places (I'm not aware of any such places actually), ignorance is not a defense. While it may be taken into account while determining your punishment, it does not absolve you of guilt. The judge in that case specifically addressed, when a request for a lesser sentence was made, her belief that the defendant knew what he was doing was a violation of US law.
>My point of view would be 'absolutely not'.
From your explanation I take it you misread the question, and actually believe that this person should not be arrested (and should be immune). Lets take it to the extreme then, and suppose that I live in a country where hiring contract killers is legal and only the actually murderer can be punished. If I paid for someone in the US to be murdered, the US government should not be able to arrest me when I come to the funeral?
The internet does make it much easier to do business with people all over the world, and that should be taken into account when trying to apply local laws to foreign actors, but saying that a sovereign state should have no right to take action against people who violate their laws (in which part or all of the action takes place or has effect within their territorial jurisdiction) goes way too far.
There are enough other sites with information on China's civil rights abuses that you should be able to duck Duck Go it ;)
Living in a country with little or no respect for the law and expecting a reasonable outcome is not rational. You cannot extrapolate the experiences of your friends to cover the whole system, you don't have enough data. History shows us that China can be very ruthless in enforcing their idea of laws.