[bambax]

> Why has this not been an issue in the past?

> Until now the interpretation of export control regulations as they relate to MOOCs has been unclear and Coursera has been operating under the interpretation that MOOCs would not be restricted. We recently received information that has led to the understanding that the services offered on Coursera are not in compliance with the law as it stands. Accordingly we have instituted a restriction...

I don't understand such a proactive respect of the law. Why don't they wait to get sued instead?

Laws are not always meant to be respected; they're meant to be broken and challenged in court.

[rdl]

Criminal liability for the company (and executives/officers). If it were civil, perhaps they could take a principled stand.

The same law applies to selling weapons to terrorists, basically.

[repsilat]

"We recently received information" might be a nice way of saying "The US Attorney's Office told us they'd sue if we didn't comply." Even if that isn't the case, others have pointed out that they're covering their arse by doing this.

More generously, it could also be construed as a proactive manoeuvre to get the law changed by upholding it to the letter. They did say they were working with the State department.

[testrun]

That is an extremely interesting philosophy. So how does this work? If I don't like somebody and shoots him, I can challenge the notion of manslaughter/murder in court?

[bambax]

It means you don't surrender your conscience to your government.

So for example if your superiors, some official from some agency, or the President, asks you to torture suspects, or to monitor the private conversations of every citizen, or to keep so-called "National Security Letters" secret, and they say you have to do it "because it's the law", you can either hide behind authority or try and think for yourself.

It doesn't mean you have to break every law; when thinking for yourself you may arrive at the same conclusion as the legislator, that torturing suspects is indispensable to get the information you need, for example, and that, in your opinion, there is no better option.

But it does mean you lose the excuse of doing something morally objectionable just because someone told you to do it; from that moment on, you do it because you want to.

The reason you don't go around shooting people should be because you find killing human beings repellent, not because you fear getting caught.

[testrun]

Interesting. So what it means is that depends on my believe system I can do whatever I want? If I am a psychopath I can kill people, if I believe in saria law women need to cover up their faces and so on. What makes my believe system superior to yours or anybody else?

[smtddr]

Why these extreme examples? OP said "not always" and we are talking about viewing webpages here, not killing people. Nobody is saying to just do whatever you want but sometimes you should reflect on what you're being told to do.

Remeber this? http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870411730... >>Google Defies China on Web. Search Giant Stops Censoring Its Results

Did you know the excuse "I was just following orders" is no longer a valid defense 100% of the time? That means you need to consider sometimes not following rules/orders if it seems unethical.

Also, if you're protesting something you believe is unethical there can be situations[1] that breaking the law on purpose brings about progress. I think Google alm

1. http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/11/jackson-ms-sit-in.jpg

____

P.S. I don't understand how anyone doesn't already know this. The law is not absolute. You don't just follow it unquestionably & unthinkingly. There are countless examples of people breaking laws that are unethical to bring about progress in a society. I suspect you're just trolling.

[testrun]

>>Laws are not always meant to be respected; they're meant to be broken and challenged in court.<<

As quoted from parent.

So if I ask the OP to explain, that is trolling? What do you define as discussion?

And my question still remains, who decides what is good or bad?

[smtddr]

This is ridiculous. Are you purposely ignoring the ____NOT ALWAYS____ in the qoute?

Do you understand what this picture is? http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/11/jackson-ms-sit-in.jpg

Do you understand the good that comes from Google disabling censorship in China even though it was not lawful under Chinese law to do so?

I'm not going to get into some silly pedantic debate about who gets to decide right & wrong. If you don't undestand those 2 examples and what the OP is saying, then ....good luck to you.