The idea originated back in 1992 when the U.S. wanted to create a treaty where foreign countries would
be obligated to enforce U.S. judgements, just like we currently enforce foreign ones. This idea thus
gave birth to the Hague Convention. And if passed
this treaty would obligate the signatories to enforce the civil judgments passed by domestic courts
in civil lawsuits.
At first thought this treaty appears to be a godsend. But in actuality it will threaten basic civil
rights such as free speech. Consider the following scenario: You run a U.S.-based web site. A court in
China disapproves of your site and its contents and demands your web hosting provider immediately
take it down. And your provider complies with the order.
This and similar scenarios will be possible if the Hague Convention is approved by the president
and ratified by the Senate. Currently, over fifty states are involved in its negotiation. These
Convention members range from China to Yugoslavia
to Turkey.
Civil liberties groups are up in arms over this, not to mention Internet Service Providers (ISPs),
as this treaty could trigger a flood of lawsuits. Not surprisingly, the U.S. State Department is
also concerned about the ramifications of such a broad treaty.
On the bright side, no one expects this treaty to ever become official policy. But that's not to
say that it's not likely. The software, movie, and recording industries are its strongest supporters.
They are quite fond of the idea of being able to enforce their copyrights worldwide as there is
currently no effective way to enforce U.S. court judgments overseas.
What is most feared is that this treaty will reduce "the public's rights to the lowest common
denominator," paving the way for individuals to be sued from anywhere in the world for copyright,
defamation, or privacy violations.
We saw this last year when a French court ordered that Yahoo! must block French citizens' "access
to online auctions of Nazi memorabilia on its U.S.-based site or face fines of $14,000 per day because
the items violated France's hate-speech laws." To avoid the stiff fines, Yahoo! complied by pulling
the items, even though they were protected under U.S. laws.
How do you like the idea of being liable for over 50 different sets of laws at once? This is what citizens
would be subjected to if the treaty is passed. "Web surfers would be bound by the laws of the most restrictive
countries, outlawing parody sites or sites critical of the government" and companies would be forced to
police their networks for content considered illegal in other countries.