Scripts:
Host: The internet search giant Yahoo is fighting a high profile lawsuit which accuses the company of helping suppress free speech in China. Yahoo is asking a US federal judge to throw this censorship case out of court. Of more on this, we are joined now by Nick Thompson. He is a senior editor at Wired magazine. And there's just a little bit more background for this story. Yahoo is being accused of handing over information to the Chinese government which led to the arrest of two dissidents. Now looking at Yahoo’s position, they are saying we have to abide by Chinese laws. Isn’t that a fair point?

Editor: It is a fair point and I think it’s gonna be one of the central points in the case if you read their motion to dismiss. Their central argument is, as they say, we can’t be asked, much less compelled to violate the laws of a country in which we operate.

H: But there are also US laws. Are there not, that, sort of forbid this sort of behavior? I mean, Should there be some sort of recalls to the US courts for this at all?

E: Right, and so that’s what the plaintiffs are arguing.They are arguing that there are two major US statutes. The Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act. And they say, look, the US has agreed with all these treaties, the US agrees that it must follow some sort of international law and international human rights standards and that’s more important than the particular laws in the country in which these companies operate. So they are saying, you have to appeal to a higher law; Yahoo is saying, hey, we just have to deal with China's laws.

H: And Yahoo is being slightly hypocritical about this, isn't it? Because it was fined by a French court a couple of years ago, because it allowed people to trade Nazi memorabilia on its auction site, and it turned to the US to get that French decision overturned .So there is a bit of hypocrisy going on here , isn’t there?

E: Oh, there is absolutely hypocrisy. I mean another argument that Yahoo makes and Yahoo defenders make is that, overall, the benefit of Yahoo is good. They allow people to communicate through the Internet which will actually help, eventually bring democracy to China. So they are saying that overall, the benefits outweigh the cost. The other important legal argument that we haven’t touched on is, Yahoo is saying" Look, these people might have been tortured. But Yahoo didn’t torture them. If you wanna sue somebody, sue the government of China.'' And that’s another important legal claim that I think will affect the way this case turns out.

H: Is there suggestion that Yahoo handed more information over them was necessary?

E: Oh, absolutely. So what the plaintiffs are saying is they actually weren't compelled to do almost anything. They think it was more like Yahoo sort of was trying to ingratiate itself, or lower level employees at Yahoo wanted to do somebody a favor. So they gave a whole bevy of information. They gave IP addresses; they gave actual E-mails; they gave tons of stuff to China.

H: It’s not just , I'd see, the legal implications here, it's also the court of public opinion, isn’t it? And I wonder how this could affect Yahoo’s business?

E: Oh, I think it’s terrible for yahoo. My personal instinct is that they’ll probably win the case. It depends on the judge who handles the next stage, but their legal arguments are pretty strong. But the question of how this affects the way we look at Yahoo? I think there’s gonna be a very big hit to the company because of this. Each time this plays out, the company looks worse and worse. Because what they did, whether it was legal or whether it was illegal, certainly doesn't seem like the right thing to have done.

H: And can people or would people migrate to Google, coz they have had their own issues with China as well?

E: Well, people will certainly migrate to Google, Google things are a little different, google's are things of omission not commission. What google does is it sets up its search engine in China, so that you can’t search for certain terms. If you type in “human rights” in Google China, you get different results, if you type from what you get if you type in “human rights” in Google America. But that’s quite different from sending information on a particular dissident and then having him get arrested and tortured.

H: So if Google were asked to do the same thing, would it under Chinese law be compelled to do so?

E: Well, it might well be compelled under Chinese law to do so, and then Google would have to decide whether it wants to follow along with that particular Chinese law? Or whether it wants to say'' Hey, we are an American company. We have to follow these international standards and then let's make China, see what China does next.

H: En, fascinating,and this one will really sort of shape the future of the moral question here, won't it?

E: Oh, It is an incredibly interesting moral question. What do American companies do in places like China, where they are probably aiding and abetting censorship which is one of the things the Internet is supposed to help break down. It’s a marvelous question.

H: Nick Thompson ,senior editor with Wired. Thank you so much for joining us.
E: Thanks a lot for having me here.

Notes:

Aid and abet: help, assist, or facilitate