On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 09:13:55PM -0400, Michael StJohns wrote:
At 06:15 PM 3/19/2015, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
I read "local law" as meaning the law where the interaction is taking place.
While that can get very complicated for electronic interaction, for the
example you chose to cite it is very clear. If Charlie Hebdo's cover
violates local law where you are reading it, you have chosen to ask for more
trouble than just a discussion with the IETF harrasment ombudsman.
Except the document does not say "local law" and does not say "local
law at the place where the IETF occurs during only the time the IETF
is in session".
The phrase was "applicable law" and that is NOT equivalent to "local
law" in any way, shape or form.
But "applicable law", today, has to be local to some physical
jurisdiction. We're still living in a world of politics with sharp
physical borders. We don't have law creation and enforcement entities
divorced from physical political entities. Therefore "applicable law"
is "local law" in some sense, at least for now.
What is not clear is which localities shall seek to apply their laws to
specific cases of harassment at the IETF, or which localities' laws a
Reporter and/or the Ombudsteam shall seek to apply to such cases even
when the localities bring no legal complaint to any forum qualified to
hear it.
Nico
--