Now Microsoft is in the raging hot seat for allegedly censoring its hosted blogs according to restrictive Chinese law. Google and Yahoo! have both felt the wrath of humanists and libertarians for attempting to conduct business in a drastically foreign culture. It's easy to be glib as an observer: "Stop censoring!" we might say. But when the alternative is to close up operations in that country, or face litigation from the government, the issues complicates. Microsoft wishes to be a blog host in a land with billions of eyeballs—rewriting foreign public policy is not part of the business plan. (At least, not in this instance.) Boycotting China would be a noble choice. But simply ignoring Chinese law would just stir up international friction to little positive effect.

Some observers call for the U.S. government to get involved, perhaps by "enforcing" the Global Internet Freedom Act, drafted and passed into law in 2003. But this bill merely underlines the astonishing American arrogance. How can the U.S. establish global policy on behalf of other nations? It isn't only the vast and increasingly powerful third world that torments American companies; France and Germany have repeatedly smacked American online service providers for violating their local regulations. The Global Internet Freedom Act, well-intentioned thought it be, hedges its own bets with a "Limitation of Authority" clause: "Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to authorize any action by the United States to interfere with foreign national censorship in furtherance of legitimate law enforcement aims that is consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Would you want to go into battle with Chinese censors armed with that ambiguous piece of legislative code?

The idea that restrictive governments will ever embrace the Internet as a free-floating realm of uninhibited expression is preposterous. Online providers have only two choices: Obey local law or stay out.