Twitter's Legal&Local Responsibilities

[LeftEyeNine]

Can anybody enlighten me about if and what country-based enforcements Twitter has to oblige?

I mean, does Twitter, Inc. have to reply/comply with a Turkish/Indian/Malaysian/French/American court's orders, e.g. banning/revealing the owners of an account sentenced ? Is it compulsory or complimentary of Twitter to open local offices ?

Thank you.

[Sarmatian]

It depends a lot on the local laws. Some countries may require companies like Twitter to open offices in the local country before they can provide service. In theory, Twitter can be involved in a lawsuit in the local court but it doesn't have to comply with the verdict, in which case the local offices are forcibly closed if they exist and the service blocked, local bank accounts blocked and so on...

After the verdict of the local court, one side may ask for international arbitration, which is sketchy, because not all countries recognize it and often both sides need to agree they will accept the verdict of international arbitration before the court takes up the case.

If the government of Turkey sues Twitter and demands reparations, for example, and the Turkish courts rule in favour of the government and Twitter doesn't comply, everything Twitter owns in Turkey may be taken by the government, possibly even in other countries Turkey has special legal agreements with. If it's not enough, Turkey may sue Twitter to international court, where it would get sketchy. USA doesn't recognize any international court so under US legal system, they wouldn't be required to pay anything. That would mean that Turkey would have either to sue Twitter in US, or get Twitter to agree to international arbitration in which case the decision is obliging to both sides, and because Twitter willingly agreed to that, Turkish government may demand that US legal system makes sure Twitter pays, and US courts are obliged to do that.

[LeftEyeNine]

So Turkish authorities are not awfully wrong if and when Twitter neglects the court orders whereas Twitter is not guilty in being allowed a service where no prequisites were set prior to the commencing of local operation -whole story depends on whether sides want to compromise or not. Too sketchy.

[Sarmatian]

So Turkish authorities are not awfully wrong if and when Twitter neglects the court orders whereas Twitter is not guilty in being allowed a service where no prequisites were set prior to the commencing of local operation -whole story depends on whether sides want to compromise or not. Too sketchy.

Exactly. Twitter is required to obey Turkish courts and their decisions if it wants to do business in Turkey.

If I open a soft drinks and liquor store in Serbia I can open another branch in Turkey, in accordance with local laws. If I decide to open another one in Saudi Arabia, I'd only be allowed to sell soft drinks and no liquor. It doesn't matter that my business sells both soft drinks and liquor in Serbia and Turkey, local laws of Saudi Arabia won't allow me to do that there. If I disregard that, Saudi Arabia can close my business and fine me.

[LeftEyeNine]

Exactly. Twitter is required to obey Turkish courts and their decisions if it wants to do business in Turkey.

If I open a soft drinks and liquor store in Serbia I can open another branch in Turkey, in accordance with local laws. If I decide to open another one in Saudi Arabia, I'd only be allowed to sell soft drinks and no liquor. It doesn't matter that my business sells both soft drinks and liquor in Serbia and Turkey, local laws of Saudi Arabia won't allow me to do that there. If I disregard that, Saudi Arabia can close my business and fine me.

Well the thing is you as a vendor did not face any obstructions with your product gamut, may it be soft drinks or liquor, until somebody drinking liquors started yelling about the corruption allegations, the right and will to organize demonstrations etc. -the regulator suddenly shoves a written ban of alcohol drinks in your face. That's where the two-headed unfairness actually starts.

[Sarmatian]

Well the thing is you as a vendor did not face any obstructions with your product gamut, may it be soft drinks or liquor, until somebody drinking liquors started yelling about the corruption allegations, the right and will to organize demonstrations etc. -the regulator suddenly shoves a written ban of alcohol drinks in your face. That's where the two-headed unfairness actually starts.

That's a whole other thing. Laws may be just or unjust, politicians and courts can be corrupt.

I was talking about legality. Twitter ban in Turkey may be legal, but that doesn't automatically make it just or right. Hanging two gay boys in Iran was perfectly legal under their laws, that doesn't make it ok.