The Silver Lining (Score 1)

So maybe I'm complacent, but I see a glimmer of hope out of this in the long run. The fundamental difference (at least for the purposes of this discussion) between Wal-Mart and Yahoo! is that Wal-Mart can easily adjust its sales policies on a country-by-country basis, but Yahoo! can not, or at least has chosen not to in this case.

So in response to a single nation's demands, Yahoo! has taken action that affects the entire world. What happens when Upper Mahabowa decides to outlaw references to the Pacific Ocean? Or any other outrageous demand you choose to use as an example? Strip out the specifics and what you're talking about is a single nation imposing its will on the whole world, because there's no good way to separate one nation from another.

So what's good about that? There's real, strong, commercial motivation for developing free speech laws on a global basis. We'll have to agree, as a world, what degrees of restriction are acceptable and what are unacceptable. And that will advance the cause of free expression, not hinder it.

'Cause free expression doesn't exist in the mythical state of nature. It only exists because there are laws that allow it to exist.