If cyberspace is boundaryless, how can the US government shut down BlackBerry?

On the (incumbent) Creators' Copyright Coalition BLOG, Christopher Moore makes some coments about jurisdiction issues that new communications and transportation technologies have brought to the surface.

Following along the same line of thought, if it is right for BlackBerry to comply with (good? bad? dubious?) American law in the United States, is it wrong for Google to comply with (undoubtedly bad) Chinese law in China?

I submitted the following as a comment. Past comments to this site were rejected, so it will be interesting if this group will be willing to post the comments of a fellow creator's rights activist:

I think the interesting question is not whether someone should have to obey a countries laws when doing business in that country, but whether they are forced to obey those laws outside of the country. One thing we have learned from nature is that biodiversity allows us to survive against unforeseen (unforeseeable) circumstances. The same should exist with law as well, with "international harmonization" of law being the most dangerous thing to society.

This is no more true in the laws which govern creativity and innovation, the laws which govern whether we will have the capacity to even discuss as a society future possibilities.

As a Canadian who chooses not to do business in the United States because of legal landmine there, the fact that their patent system is out of control and incapable of producing high quality patents (patents that would stand up to closer scrutiny in a court) should not affect me. Unfortunately there is a pressure to harmonize Canadian law with US law, even in cases where the US law has been proven to be harmful to the creativity and innovation of its citizens (US patent practises, DMCA, etc).

The USA may be our largest trading partner, but it is also our largest trading competitor. We need to realize that we can't win a sport against the umpire, nor can we compete with US companies by adopting their protectionist policies.

I believe there is a lot of similarity between eastern-censorship (China, etc) vs Western-censorship (largely PCT laws). Each is a matter of laws that are there to protect incumbent interests, whether they be the incumbent government and form of governance, or incumbent content and media companies protecting their existing methods of production, distribution and funding.

Google didn't need to radically alter the way they do business in China from how they do business in the USA. The primary difference is that in China it is a notice-and-takedown from a verifiable representative of the government, while in the USA it is a notice-and-takedown from someone only alleging to be a "copyright holder". How many of these alleged copyright holders would stand up in court?