Twitter's Legal&Local Responsibilities

[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.

[LeftEyeNine]

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.

Or call it "illegal" not "unfair". It works both ways. Twitter could very well claim that they could not be held subject to sanctions they were not notified/were non-existent before.

[drone]

To disrupt the analogy, Twitter isn't selling products in Turkey and doesn't need a local presence (although they might have one).

[Sarmatian]

Or call it "illegal" not "unfair". It works both ways. Twitter could very well claim that they could not be held subject to sanctions they were not notified/were non-existent before.

Any entity, be it a person or an organization, is required to obey the law. If the law gets changed, they are still required to obey it. Courts don't consider "the law was different when I started my business" as a valid excuse.

Don't confuse legality and justice/fairness. In a free society, law aspires to be just and fair (although it never quite reaches that point). If the parliament of a country passes a law that states any person who walks the street after 9 PM will be shot, and tomorrow a police officer shoots a man for doing it, courts will find nothing illegal happened.

In that case, your beef is with the legislative, not with the judiciary. Courts only care about how a law is enforced, not what it says.

Long story short - remove Erdogan. The fault lies with him, not with courts.

To disrupt the analogy, Twitter isn't selling products in Turkey and doesn't need a local presence (although they might have one).

That is true, but Turkey may decide to block access to Twitter if it isn't in accordance with local laws, completely legally.

To use a different, just example. If someone used Twitter to spread hatred of the Jews and pictures of Nazi symbols, current German government, under their laws, may ask Twitter to remove it. If Twitter doesn't comply, they may block it in Germany, again perfectly legally.

[LeftEyeNine]

Any entity, be it a person or an organization, is required to obey the law. If the law gets changed, they are still required to obey it. Courts don't consider "the law was different when I started my business" as a valid excuse.

Don't confuse legality and justice/fairness. In a free society, law aspires to be just and fair (although it never quite reaches that point). If the parliament of a country passes a law that states any person who walks the street after 9 PM will be shot, and tomorrow a police officer shoots a man for doing it, courts will find nothing illegal happened.

In that case, your beef is with the legislative, not with the judiciary. Courts only care about how a law is enforced, not what it says.

Long story short - remove Erdogan. The fault lies with him, not with courts.

Nope, new laws don't work backwards.

Discerning legality and fairness is not news. We must already be discussing under the assumption that "power" and "right" are not necessarily mutually inclusive.

About your preference of treatment - ...*daydreams*

[Sarmatian]

Nope, new laws don't work backwards.

In special cases they can, but that is rare and unusual.

They don't work backwards in a sense that you can't be held accountable if performed an action while it was legal. If the law gets changed and make that action illegal, you won't go to jail, but it means that after the law is changed, if you repeat that action you will be guilty of breaking the law.

[drone]

That is true, but Turkey may decide to block access to Twitter if it isn't in accordance with local laws, completely legally.

Which they already have done. Twitter will be affected, advertisers lose the market, and advertisers with a presence in Turkey might face sanctions if they continue, but Twitter and it's employees should be fine (as long as they don't decide to visit).

And the legal phrase for retroactive laws is ex post facto. According to wiki, ex post facto punishment is prohibited by Article 38 of the Constitution.

[Sarmatian]

Which they already have done. Twitter will be affected, advertisers lose the market, and advertisers with a presence in Turkey might face sanctions if they continue, but Twitter and it's employees should be fine (as long as they don't decide to visit).

Prety much, yeah.

And the legal phrase for retroactive laws is ex post facto. According to wiki, ex post facto punishment is prohibited by Article 38 of the Constitution.

There is more than one constitution in the world and constitutions can change. There have been examples of laws applies retroactively in modern history, but, as I've said, it's rare and unusual.

[drone]

There is more than one constitution in the world and constitutions can change. There have been examples of laws applies retroactively in modern history, but, as I've said, it's rare and unusual.

That's article 38 of Turkey's Constitution. It's in Article 1 here, since it was fresh on our minds at the time.

[Greyblades]

That is true, but Turkey may decide to block access to Twitter if it isn't in accordance with local laws, completely legally.

Hrm, thus far we have yet to see any nation provide a 100% effective filter on the internet, without creating thier own internal internet like north korea. I assume it's turkey's filter is just as ineffective?