[Affiltavajefe]

So what I think you are saying is that if a company wants to trade in a foreign country then it has to obey the laws of that country. The assumption here is that this is fine because there is a big market and the potential for profit. You're referring to the basic tenent of capitalism, in fact, the maximisation of profit.

So if I am a manufacuter of electric prods I should then be allowed to sell my products in any country, whatever their human rights record. Afterall, I am just an honest businessman pursuing profit. Or, as we have seen, I can give my cattle, well, other cattle to eat because the law doesn't say I can't and the practice makes beef-based agriculture more profitable. Or, I can test my drugs in Africa because there are no laws restricting this.

In this model actions do not have any consequences, other than what can be measured in monetary terms. But we know that there are intangible consequences - the choice is whether we choose to value them or not. So I believe that by saying 'Google is justified in delivering a censored search engine to China' you are condoning any business deal that puts profit before human values.