You might remember a strange little case that was filed back in 2011 by some Chinese dissidents in New York. Their
weak ass sadly untested argument was that Baidu was censoring search results such that their anti-China content did not come up when folks did a search. The plaintiffs argued that this was a violation of the U.S. constitution.
While fascinated by the case, I nevertheless said it was a big fat loser, and last week, it was indeed tossed by a New York federal judge. However, the decision did not go to the merits of the case, but rather procedural issues. The case thus appears to be only temporarily dead, but don’t be fooled by this; in fact it’s actually completely dead, as I explain below.
First, the news from Reuters:
Baidu Inc on Monday won the dismissal of a U.S. lawsuit brought by pro-democracy activists who claimed that China’s largest search engine operator, as well as the country itself, should be punished for censoring them over the Internet.
U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in Manhattan said dismissal was proper because the defendants had not been properly served with court papers, and China had invoked an international treaty in claiming that service would infringe its sovereignty.
Yes, a procedural issue that has to do with the Hague Convention, an international treaty that governs cross-border service of process and related issues. I don’t know the details here, but if the plaintiffs had to serve Baidu in China, then the Hague Convention specifies a procedure that includes China’s Ministry of Justice.
If I have that right, it means that to fix the procedural defect and move forward, the plaintiffs would essentially need the cooperation of the Chinese government to serve Baidu with papers. That ain’t gonna happen, which is why I’d say this case is all the way dead, not just very tired and in need of a rest.
Note that I’m not up on cross-border litigation issues, so maybe someone (Dan Harris? Don Clarke?) could chime in with a correction/confirmation.
We’ll have to wait and see what happens next, but if the case gets kicked on jurisdictional objections, or other pre-trial motions, then we’ll unfortunately never know how these guys ever thought they could win a case like this.
Yeah, it looks like that’s what happened. That’s unfortunate, because I’m pretty sure that this case not only had procedural defects, but also substantive problems as well, big giant furry ones. I wrote about the jurisdictional and constitutional issues in my first post on the case. Suffice it to say, I saw no bright rays of sunshine for the plaintiffs there.
Looking back on this, it’s kind of ironic that the reason I find this suit so odious is its argument based on the First Amendment. You’d think that the plaintiffs are the ones who are treading the moral high ground with respect to free speech here; after all, they are lashing out at the PRC’s censorship regime.
But two wrongs do not make a right, and I see this attempt to force a private company to conform to certain content rules, whether liberal or not, as not at all within the spirit of the First Amendment. As I wrote in 2011:
Look, if I wanted to start a new site called ‘Nazi Search Pig’ that omitted all blogs written by Jews (like China Hearsay) in search results, I should be able to do that. Whether Baidu is censoring porn or political speech at the behest of the Chinese government is irrelevant — the US constitution simply does not prohibit that kind of activity. However, if Baidu were to be found liable, who’s next and where does it end? What other positive requirements like this are we going to place on our platform operators?
In other words, Baidu is a private company that should be left alone when it comes to content. Its motivations for censoring search results can be criticized, but it shouldn’t be up to the U.S. legal system or government to tell it what to do in this regard. Indeed, if Congress decides to actually get involved with this sort of thing, passing local content rules for web sites (they wouldn’t officially call it that, of course), you realize what the end game would be, right? There would have to be an enforcement mechanism for sites that failed to meet the standards. I’m thinking some sort of domain/page level blocking could be done, perhaps with the assistance of ISPs or a new government-run technical agency.
But I suppose that would be OK as long as the U.S. was doing it in order to secure our First Amendment rights.