MSN is starting to encounter the reputational consequences of its censorship of Michael Anti's blog. MSNs move is reported today in technology site CNET, taking the lead from Rebecca Mackinnon. In the CNET article, Microsoft invokes the now-cliche "obeying local laws defense" previously wielded by them, Google (for it's keyword censorship) and Yahoo (for turning over Shi Tao's e-mail to the Chinese authorities):
A Microsoft representative told ZDNet UK on Wednesday that it blocked Anti's MSN Spaces blog to help ensure that the service complied with local laws in China.

"MSN is committed to ensuring that products and services comply with global and local laws, norms and industry practices. Most countries have laws and practices that require companies providing online services to make the Internet safe for local users. Occasionally, as in China, local laws and practices require consideration of unique elements," the representative said.

Questions still remain over why a site believed to be hosted in the United States has to comply with Chinese law. Microsoft responded to requests for more information on this issue by stating that "Microsoft is a multinational business and, as such, needs to manage the reality of operating in countries around the world."

There is something interesting unfolding here. Anyone who watches US media and public sentiment will see that there is a current of deminonization of China flowing right now (although it's faded a bit in the past couple of months). While I don't agree with much of that current, it might have the interesting side effect of putting more pressure on American tech-media companies operating in China. The more the Chinese regime is demonized in the US media, the more distasteful American corporate complicity in some of its more repellent tactics will come to be seen, especially when they infringe upon dissidents often --though not always correctly-- seen as heroes of democracy. As a China resident (and someone who probably sees China in more shades of gray than the average American), I don't think this is necessarily the ideal way for this situation to resolve, but the consequences would be interesting to watch, nonetheless.

As for the "obeying local laws defense", I have criticized that in this space previously. Certainly China is going to impose unique constraints on foreign companies operating within its borders, and I don't think the solution is necessarily for those companies to quit China (not least because my job depends on them being here). But the question that situations --and excuses-- like this raise for American tech-media companies is this: where is your ethical horizon? Every country has its own laws and regulations. Some are more egregious than others. Some are indefensible. When do a company's values supercede its desire to make money and generate shareholder return? Does that point exist in the absence of public scrutiny? Perhaps some American tech-media companies would like to articulate what kind of "local laws and regulations" would push them too far?

As someone who was first capitivated by the Internet due to its power as a vehicle for personal communication and free-speech, I would be interested to know.