A topic came up one discussion list that I am a part of that I thought I would talk about here.
The basic question asked was that in an ever more globalized world, where an international network of computers (Internet) fails to recognize geo political borders, should there a greater effort to harmonize individual nation state laws to match US laws? The context of the question was the Can Spam act in the US that outlines the the restrictions placed on spammers. What the law did, or rather didn't do, was stop the flow of spam. It simply changed where the spam came from as most spam sources moved off shore.
The question posed, as I understood it was: Should other countries respect or adopt the laws of the US in order to avoid this sort of thing from happening?
US productivity (and Canadian productivity for that matter) is hurt by these spammers - shouldn't something be done? And what about questions of intellectual property? Labour laws? Human rights?
Here are my thoughts:
Just because the US decides to pass ridiculous laws that won't allow a Sonny and Cher recording to enter the public domain for ANOTHER 30 years (because its bad for... ummm... Cher) doesn't mean that the world has to be in lock step with US congress.
I am all for geo-political/nation/state sovereignty. The government of a nation should decide what laws best represent the interests of itself and its citizens. The law of a nation is also a representation of the values of that nation. A nation's reputation is also largely dependent on its laws. It is in a nation's own best interest to pass good law. This doesn't mean that good law is always passed in any given nation, but each nation and its citizens suffer the consequences of bad law. For good or bad, better or worse, each nation's laws are their own.
But, No law passed by the elected officials (or worse, unelected officials) of another country should ever apply to me. (International law is another matter though - since a representatives of my government were at least involved in the process that brought about the law).
Laws are memes. The strong ones will eventually flourish globally - the weak ones will, at best, survive in isolated habitats that allow them to survive (even if they happen to be large isolated habitats like the US). Many many more will die out altogether.
Which laws have a better chance of surviving? Ones that supports human rights or ones that suppresses them? Ones that increases the body of human knowledge and adds to human understanding or ones that restrict its growth? Ones that protect the environment, or ones that makes it easier to pollute the environment? Ones that grant liberty or ones that restrict it?
Looking back at recent US law (even before the time of Bush jr.) I wouldn't want to take any cues from the US in legal matters. (Digital Millennium Copyright act, Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension act, The Energy Policy act of 2003, The Patriot act, Withdrawal from Anti-Ballistic Treaty, Not ratifying Kyoto, Act of congress allowing US invasion of Iraq etc. etc. etc.) In so many areas it is apparent that the US is out of step with the world - so why would I want to consider looking to them to lead the way for any law - let alone adopt their laws outright?
But what about spammers? Anti spam laws like the ones in the US are a good idea non? Well here is an example of law as meme that is more likely to flourish. I think more and more of the modern industrial world will adopt similar anti-spam laws. It is a good idea. But, just because the US passes such a law shouldn't make any other nation obligated to do the same.
No - harmonization with US law -as a rule- is a bad idea. But if a law is a good one, it will eventually be adopted globally on its own merits and not on its place of origin.
andre
Gooooooooooooooo Soverignty!
Posted by: derek at February 7, 2005 01:23 PM