X.com blocks access to Ekrem Imamoglu, leader of Turkey political opposition
Technology
77
Beiträge
31
Kommentatoren
1
Aufrufe
-
if they don't they will face criminal charges
The Turkish government does not have the authority to enforce criminal charges on an American person/company.
Even fediverse instance owners would be forced to block his accounts under threat of fines and/or prosecution.
Only if the instance owners/servers were in Turkey.
Criminal charges was probably the wrong word, but that’s being pedantic. The company operates in Turkey and allows Turkish people to use the product, so they have to follow Turkish laws. The Turkish government can file legal charges against them for failure to comply. Same with any fediverse instance owners - they would either have to block their instance from all Turkish users, or comply.
-
- How is censoring a politician "standing up for free speech"?
- "full of shit" = not a "free speech absolutist". "free speech absolutist" implies that you will not censor any speech no matter what.
You don’t seem to understand how the legal system and governments work.
They issued a legal request to censor his account in Turkey. Failure to do so would result in severe consequences for X, such as having to take X offline for all of Turkey.
X complied with the law and are challenging the censorship request in court, the only place that has the power to overrule the government.
-
Criminal charges was probably the wrong word, but that’s being pedantic. The company operates in Turkey and allows Turkish people to use the product, so they have to follow Turkish laws. The Turkish government can file legal charges against them for failure to comply. Same with any fediverse instance owners - they would either have to block their instance from all Turkish users, or comply.
that’s being pedantic
It's not. At all.
they would either have to block their instance from all Turkish users, or comply.
No, they wouldn't. Once again, Turkey has no authority over people and servers not located in their jurisdiction.
-
You don’t seem to understand how the legal system and governments work.
They issued a legal request to censor his account in Turkey. Failure to do so would result in severe consequences for X, such as having to take X offline for all of Turkey.
X complied with the law and are challenging the censorship request in court, the only place that has the power to overrule the government.
You don’t seem to understand how the legal system and governments work.
I am not a lawyer but I do understand how jurisdictions work. Elon is not in theirs.
Failure to do so would result in severe consequences for X, such as having to take X offline for all of Turkey.
If he were a "free speech absolutist" as he claims, he would let them.
You didn't answer my question.
-
that’s being pedantic
It's not. At all.
they would either have to block their instance from all Turkish users, or comply.
No, they wouldn't. Once again, Turkey has no authority over people and servers not located in their jurisdiction.
The Turkish government has legal authority over companies that are serving their citizens.
Why do you think the GDPR laws were such a big deal even outside of the UK?
-
You don’t seem to understand how the legal system and governments work.
I am not a lawyer but I do understand how jurisdictions work. Elon is not in theirs.
Failure to do so would result in severe consequences for X, such as having to take X offline for all of Turkey.
If he were a "free speech absolutist" as he claims, he would let them.
You didn't answer my question.
Elon isn’t. X is.
I did answer your question. Last paragraph.
-
The Turkish government has legal authority over companies that are serving their citizens.
Why do you think the GDPR laws were such a big deal even outside of the UK?
The Turkish government has legal authority over companies that are serving their citizens.
No. They don't. You can keep repeating this non-sense but it's simply untrue.
-
The Turkish government has legal authority over companies that are serving their citizens.
No. They don't. You can keep repeating this non-sense but it's simply untrue.
You don’t think companies that operate in Turkey for Turkish citizens have to follow any Turkish laws?
Again - GDPR.
-
Elon isn’t. X is.
I did answer your question. Last paragraph.
X is.
No it is not. Twitter is a US company with US servers. If you want to argue that the US is now a territory of Turkey, please cite a source.
I did answer your question.
No you didn't.
-
X is.
No it is not. Twitter is a US company with US servers. If you want to argue that the US is now a territory of Turkey, please cite a source.
I did answer your question.
No you didn't.
X operates in Turkey by giving Turkish users access to the site. They either follow Turkish law or they don’t serve Turkish residents.
They can of course fight any legal requests by the Turkish government - and oh look! They are!
-
You don’t think companies that operate in Turkey for Turkish citizens have to follow any Turkish laws?
Again - GDPR.
You don’t think companies that operate in Turkey
Lemmy is not a company and the users and servers located outside of Turkey are not subject to the jurisdiction of Turkey.
If you're just going to repeat the same non-sense over and over without any evidence I'm going to block you.
-
You don’t think companies that operate in Turkey
Lemmy is not a company and the users and servers located outside of Turkey are not subject to the jurisdiction of Turkey.
If you're just going to repeat the same non-sense over and over without any evidence I'm going to block you.
When a Lemmy instance owner gets a legal request from a foreign countries government to take down content, after they’re done shitting themselves they’ll take the content down or they’ll have to implement a country wide block on that country, along with not allowing any citizens of that country to use their instance no matter where they are located.
Block me, I don’t care. You’re just proving that you can’t handle the truth and being challenged with it.
