Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Given Reprieve In French Court Battle
Spudley writes "The BBC is reporting that Yahoo! has been given a reprieve by a French court. The judge had previously ruled that they must block access in France to any Nazi-related auctions on their site. The judge has now asked for a panel to be set up, to provided technical information, before he decides the case." For more information, check out original article about this. It's a pretty interesting debate - how do national laws apply to the Internet?
Read the article, this is about Yahoo. Yahoo.fr has no Nazi stuff available. In the gambling case, the guy was a US citizen, therefore subject to US law. BTW, if Yahoo said No, probably Yahoo's assets in France could be seized, but short of blocking all of Yahoo's pages at the ISP level, there is not much that the French could do.
You wanna know if chicks in Marseille are too hung up on anti-Americanism to keep you from getting laid.
If French courts accept this interpretation, could China legitimately prosecute somebody who posts adverse information about it on French server, for example? Perhaps a better solution would be for all French users to register with the goverment, so that Yahoo could block their IPs. Let's see how they like that cake.
I don't read British
Its amusing reading all of these replies from arogant americans .. "yeah, we have total freedom of speech so europe will just have to stick it as well", or "what can france do to US companies? fk 'em". The fact is, we don't want freedom of speech USA style. We don't want people producing racist literature, we don't want our children to grow up in a world where people can advocate torturing and murdering people in public forums hiding behind the freedom of speech shield. Thats why European countries restrict some speech, not because we are information nazis, but because that speech is intended to have a negative effect on the people who read it and the vast majority of people find it distasteful and abhorent.
/. readers here.. yes, there are always ways around things like this, but thats the difference between publishing and smuggling.
btw, yahoo is easily capable of blocking french IP addresses from accessing nazi related auctions. I'm surprised at the technical ignorance of
International law is strange - earlier this year a US court ordered a Hong Kong company (under the jurisdiction of China!) to pay damages of $18 million to a Japanese company and to cease production of its product line. Can you imagine the outrage if the reverse had happened - a Chinese court ordering a US company to pay up? The companies concerned were Bung vs Nintendo. So don't be surprised if you find yahoo is liable under international law after all.
And the joke gets posted on cnnfrench.com as:
A Rabbi and a *** walk into a bar.
The Catholic bartender sez "Wot is this, some kind of joke?"
The **** shoots the jewish owner and says "Yes! The joke's on him!"
Remember those medical marijuana bills in the U.S. that passed by an *astounding margin* (like 75-25, which is almost never seen, and beat school bonds) in Nevada, Alaska, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oregon, and (I think) 3 more states? They were all in the West.
You forget one other, not in the West: Washington, D.C. The Powers That Be (the Federal Government) first refused even to let the referendum votes be counted, and then relented and merely prevented it from affecting the law. Note that residents of Washington, D.C. have absolutely no representation in Congress.
A government that rules over people who have no role in determining it is usually called a dictatorship. Here, we call it Congress.
I got your taxation wit
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
This is the reason why there should be only one world government, one judicial system and one world economics.
Gods no. I have a trivial influence on the government of a nation of 270 million, or even a state of 5 million. I'd rather not see that diluted further.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I don't know about you but, even as a Jewish man disguised by a WASPy last name, I wouldn't want to walk around the country seeing swastikas on everything even if they were designed to destroy neo-Nazi solidarity!
Don't you think that if you did, after a while it would lose its power as a Nazi-associated symbol? I don't think "Iron Cross" every time I see a + sign.
Then again, widespread use of the word "f---" hasn't made it less of a curse word, so perhaps not.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
When I said I did not think there was a concidence that there is a law against anti-semitism in a country of people which hates all things not french, I was making the implication that the government is telling the people what to think and in this circumstance, what not to think, which causes promotion of the nazi party and nazi doctrine which there is a law against.
That may have been confusing, did you catch that?
-[ Shanoyu - wtr - planetmofo.com ]-
Sir, I mean no offense but I fail to see how your ass is insightful at all.
I am speaking specifically to the circumstances, most notibly where Hitler was prohibited from speaking to large groups of people, this caused Hitler to rise in popularity so that when he was finally able to speak to large groups of people he was then able to get large groups of people (who would not ordinarily come to his speaking engagements). I wont deny that the great monsters of history will be long forgotten by the time the general populace is ever forgiven, but there were a few circumstances in which hitler was censored, then uncensored, which is somewhat of a study on using censorship as promotion, courtesy of the Pre-Hitler German Government.
Clearly the circumstances in france are not identical, however they are close.
-[ Shanoyu - wtr - planetmofo.com ]-
Of course we aren't taught much history in america, we don't have seperation of School and State yet.
But I am afaraid you are incorrect, when he first got out of prison he was prohibited from speaking to large groups of people, amongst other sanctions against him, and while Mein Kampf was not censored, it didn't need to be (or so it was thought). It was not thought that it would be published by any respectable bookbinder.
It's illegal to be skeptical about certain things? Wow, thats worse than I thought.
As for a country of people which hates all things not french, I was refering to the gigantic French-Identity crisis which afflicts both Quebec and France, breaking, entering, and attacking property of lawfully run buisnesses in france (Like McDonalds), refusing to sell transportation (like Subway tokens) to people whos command of the french language is not so great, and personally i've noticed you picking up an american hand gesture to show us how you feel about the citizens of the United States. (Clearly i've made the assumption you're french, so if you're not please attribute you to 'The french')
-[ Shanoyu - wtr - planetmofo.com ]-
Well, that's still semantics.
Taking it at face-value, incompetent would mean "not competent"; this could be construed as unskilled, ignorant, or not versed in a field, just as unqualified could be... But I suppose it has worse connotations attached to it, regardless.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
It's about time a judge realized that he's incompetent to legislate what he doesn't understand; it's rare that they ever back down and admit their mistakes.
Now if only we could teach Congress the same lesson...
Mind you, I'm not saying there should be no controls placed on the Internet, or the computer industry in general; just that they should be informed.
If it were possible to start a tech-savvy regulation board that occupies the same sort of position as the FDA or the FCC, but in charge of computers or the internet, I'd be all for it. But I have a feeling that they either wouldn't be impartial or wouldn't be tech-savvy, or wouldn't get anything done...
So as usual, we'll probably have to do it all ourselves, and attempt to advise the people who have and exercise the power over what they do not understand.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
First, about the marijuana. Why should eBay "as a respectable company" pull such an auction? How can you possibly equate marijuana with human body parts? Yes, ofcouse I'm biased, because I'm Dutch, but it's also a fact that marijuana is less addictive and less damaging than alcohol. All aside from the fact that I've never seen a stoned person beat somebody almost to death "just because he was stoned", whereas I have seen drunk people do that.
Second, about what makes that page illegal. The matter is rather complicated in its own right. First, I assume that the French legislation about racism is at least very similar to the Dutch. Here in the Netherlands, it is illegal to say or display anything racistic. Since Nazis were obviously racists, that also includes Nazism and things associated with it. However, it is not the swastika that's banned. It is an ancient religious symbol that is in widespread use in eastern religions, and as such, there is nothing wrong with it. Displaying swastikas, Nazi flags, Hitler's speeches and such in the interest of history is okay aswell. But painting a swastika on the wall of a Jewish burial ground is not. But here comes the bit that's really relevant to this issue: it is illegal to sell or import any items such as flags, uniforms, gas canisters and Hitler's book Mein Kampf.
It is not illegal to buy or own such stuff. It is however illegal to sell or import it. So basically, it would be legal for you to make a Nazi banner yourself, as long as you don't display it publicly, and don't sell it. The rules are becoming more forgiving though. In many right extremist marches Nazi banners and arm bands are displayed. Quite often right extremists have to be protected by the police to be safe from offended people.
You may say "it's been over 50 years, get over it." But on the other hand, it was _only_ 50 years. Many people still alive, including our queen and her mother, have lived through that war, have actually seen the atrocities. Most elderly Jewish people in Europe have survived spending many years in hiding, or even Nazi camps. My own grandfather lived in a swamp for three years to hide from the Germans, my grandmother was once arrested and beaten almost to death because she had lost her ID, even though she had a note from the police that she had lost it. My parents' neighbour lost a hand when the allies bombed my home town to root out a Nazi military encampment.
On top of that, war and genocide is going on right in Europe's back yard, right inbetween Italy and Greece, both members of the European Union, cutting all roads to the latter. Dare deny that we have a good reason to be sensitive when it comes to right extremist materials.
Third, about the application of national laws to the Internet: they don't. But they do apply to the operators of the servers, and to the people surfing. Thus it is a good decision, imho, to pull the debated materials from yahoo.fr, because yahoo.fr's operators have to obey French laws. However, yahoo.com's operators do not, and thus have every right to keep displaying those goods. A French surfer buying those goods would break his country's laws, though. If not by buying it, then by importing it.
Yahoo has no right (by US law) to bar French people access. The French government however can definitely decide to bar access to yahoo.com from French providers, but that just wouldn't work. IMHO, the best solution would be to pull it from yahoo.fr, and maybe put a notice on yahoo.com that it may not be legal to import the discussed materials to other countries and to check that before purchasing it.
Ofcourse, IANAL...
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
UEJF is the Jewish students Union sueing Yahoo, BTW, for the sole purpose of getting free prime time visibility.
I've put the URL to their online forum in my .sig for quite a while. Quite a few people came there to challenge their action. Interestingly, there was initially no official response from the Union, only from a few young jews who INITIALLY supported the UEJF's action. Initially ...
Initially because those lamers, instead of responding to the issues raised, started deleting posts! That's right, they started censoring. No wonder. Anyway, those who used to supported started turning around and are now flaming them. Interesting!
Even more interesting is that the guy officially in charge of the forum started posting, and he has quite a short temper, and he publically made a fool of himself.
Also, if you read amongst the flames, what you see on the part of those fine people, is actually some kind of perverted racism. They refer to non-jews with the term "goy" in a rather derogatory way shall I say.
Those people are just ridiculous. And please keep in mind who the enemy is here. On every french speaking newsgroup, NOBODY supports them.
I think you mean "associating", not "assimilating". "assimilating France with socialism" would mean that the previous poster was an active participant in the socialist takeover of France.
Actually, "assimilate" means "to make similar", so it's somewhat correct, but that is a pretty big stretch.
The difference is direction. We don't let our crypto toys leave the country, but we aren't making swiss crypto toys (i.e. ssh) illegal to be offered to americans. The analogy would be if France said that American crypto sites must block access from France to sites that offer American crypto. This is not what happens. I don't necessarily agree with crypto blocking, but it's an entirely different argument.
The point is, in that case the gambler is breaking the law, not the casino.
You see, in the U.S. marijuana is evil. eBay will not allow marijuana auctions for PR.
...
Imagine the headlines
"Online Auction Site eBay Enters Drug Dealing Business."
:-)
Just to mention something: most polytechnicians I know are pretty well versed in computer networks, the Internet and whatever. So I think you picked up a bad example here.
On the other hand, you have got to take into account the man in the street, the vision of the average politician, the vision of the average journalist. Those people do not know the intricacies of TCP/IP networking (as the average man in the US). They are used to having technical solutions designed for them as any problem arises.
Define "French elite". By certain standards, I am a member of it. Yet, I do not defend horrors such as cédérom and whatever.
The truth is that we have an aging political personnel that is a bit backwards. Everybody has this; think of the amount of Bible-waving intolerant fundamentalists there are in the US congress. Do you prefer a guy who just grumbles about a few foreign words or one that wants to tell you how to fuck, drink and how the world was created?
Yahoo has a subsidiary in France, which can be fined.
Furthermore, it is possible that the matter takes a while to get settled definitely. They haven't yet appealed; then they could appeal to the supreme court for a question of law or procedure. Given the chronic overload of the courts, this could take years!
I think you mean "associating", not "assimilating". "assimilating France with socialism" would mean that the previous poster was an active participant in the socialist takeover of France. As he or she is a "heavily-armed American", I find that unlikely.
Although I don't wish to state my opinion in such a strong manner, I do think (along with the previous poster) that the government of France is more socialist that the government of the United States. Common symptoms include much higher taxes, more government regulation, and more services provided to the citizen by the state. In some cases this is good for the country (the USA isn't perfect, that's for sure) but insofar as socialism can be blamed for the French government's position on Nazi-related items, socialism is evidently not so good for the freedom of speech in France.
...signed, a not-very-heavily-armed (but then again, the pen is mightier, right?) American.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I think it's reasonable for the country of which you are a citizen to expect you to follow its laws. You generally don't stop being a citizen just because you are temporarily on the soil of a different country. If you don't like the laws of your government, there are other countries that you can be a citizen of. Or you could lobby to change the laws of your country.
That probably happens all the time already, but nothing bad happens to the person if the U.S. refuses to extradite such a person and grants them permanent asylum and/or citizenship.
<flamebait>
Unless you're a 6-year-old kid being dragged home to a dicatatorship - in that case, the U.S. is a big 'ol pushover.
</flamebait>
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Actually, according to a previous /. article which I am too lazy to look up, Jerry Yang basically told the French court to stuff it. He said they would not be changing any content on Yahoo.com to please the French. I think they did change Yahoo.fr, but that's so their french sysadmins don't have to go to jail :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Wow, some very interesting and informative background - thanks.
I'm not saying France == Socialism; I was already aware that Sweden is much more the socialist country. Still, when you consider relative levels of taxes and government involvement in the ordinary citizen's life, from an American perspective the French system bears many of the same attributes as other socialist countries. France != Socialism and the socialistic symptoms that are present in France may not be due to true Socialism, but from this side of the pond it is pretty clear that France is closer to many of the ideals of socialism than the U.S, and thus is considered to be "more socialist" than the U.S.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
> Talking about assasinating one's leader in a
> country like that is illegal at best.
that would be illegal in the US as well
Synergies are basically awesome, and they're even better when you leverage them. -PA
Ok, so maybe it's slightly off-topic.
from the BBC article:
"Similar cases are also unfolding in other countries, including Germany, which recently banned Nazi slogans as web addresses.
German justice minister Hertha Daebler-Gmelin
called such sites "a new threat to our society", and said Germany would do all it could to fight such sites, even beyond its borders."
Sounds like thay might be forced to invade France, Belgium, and the Netherlands...again.
Oh, the horror!
--- Te gustibus non disputandum est.
"...they may harpoon us, but they ain't gonna pick us up on no radar screen!"
Don't the people in the Langue d'oc region still hate the rest of france for something? I thought it had something to do with the cathars?
Eventually France will get over the Germans, or they will start a retribution war with them.
Lowmag.net
I was refering to the Albigensian crusades, the Languedoc region, the septimanians, the cathars and anything else involved on the south coast of France. I had heard some of the people in the region still consider themselves occitan?
Lowmag.net
I've seen people who buy these items to fill their "Hitler Shrines". You can usually tell them by their AOL names like "fascisto334@aol" or "whitepwr75@aol.com"... I even see this in auctions for non-Reich artifacts bearing swastikas such as Recent auctions I've won. I collect Swastika items, but I am careful to discern their origin. The candle holders are from china, solid brass from the early nineteen hundreds (and hand-made too) and the chips are clay (pre-bakelite). The brooch I'm not sure of, except it is not at a 45 degree angle. It is beautiful though, and not at all like the regimental German rubbish. The fact is France will likely block these items, even though there is no blood spilled over them. It is quite sad.
Lowmag.net
You should go to The Friends of the Swastika page. It includes some preliminary history, and there is also a book by the owner of this page: Gentle Swastika as well as some politically incorrect (presumably) Clothes for sale.
ManWoman (yes, that's his legal name, Manny for short) is a very nice person who is quite open and understanding after putting up with people calling him a Nazi for many years. He gently explains the history of the swastika, and people walk away much better than when they came.
Lowmag.net
Seriously, post those items on ebay, and if they are in good condition, I'll buy them for my collection. As long as they're verifyably not German Third Reich, that is.
Lowmag.net
I have posted this elsewhere in other threads, but it bears repeating: the direction of the arms means nothing with swastika. The Greek swastikas look nothing like the German ones because they are not only inverted, but they take two turns instead of one. Here are most of the common swastikas of the world. You'll note that the Jewish, Hindu, Tibetan, and Christian face the same way as the German. You'll also notice none are at the signature 45 degree angle of the German.
Lowmag.net
Untrue. They are both swastika. The one to the left is called the suavastika, but this is rarely refered to as such. The NAZI swastika, technically is kept at 45 degrees to horizontal, and is made in a thick style from a 5x5 grid. In fact, when a swastika was laid down "crop circle" style in a field some years back, the paper reporting it took the picture at a 45 degree angle to drive the "point" home.
Lowmag.net
I hear this argument all the time, mostly from some of my intelligent, very normal coworkers. My favorite one is "Armed people are citizens, unarmed people are subjects". A got an email two days ago rattling of anecdotes about governments who either banned or confiscated guns and how many people were subsequently killed by the government.
My response is, "No matter how many hundreds of guns you own, if the government decides to kill you, they are going to do it. They have these new things called tanks and helicopters, and you don't."
Do all those NRA members seriously think that if 3 million people take up small arms against the US government that the Army would even have to miss lunch?
Feel free to own a gun. Shoot some targets, shoot some deer, shoot your cat, I don't care. Put please don't think of youself as some champion of justice and right, because you're not.
-B
Dear conservative moderators, Yeah, it's off topic, I have 3 digit karma and just don't care.
Instead of making Yahoo block the French, why not have the French block Yahoo? I mean, Yahoo is an American institution, why should French laws apply to it? Plus, if they feel so strongly about it, they should be the ones doing the blocking...
Sig missing. Reward.
"It's a pretty interesting debate - how do national laws apply to the Internet?"
They don't. If France wants to block Nazi-related auctions (and what a stupid gesture that would be), then they have to tell ISPs in France to filter, force French citizens to use filters or other apply there silly laws only to the French.
If you think otherwise, think what would happen if China decided to apply it's censorship laws to cnn.com.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
You just said that the internet should be "completely free in terms of content" and that interpol should hunt down spammers. How is that possible?
How do international laws apply to the content of an international phone call? The content of international paper mail?
Those who attack McDonald's restaurants in France are the French farmers. Theirs is this barbaric custom of demolishing just about anything to show their discontent. They are in no way representative of the average Frenchman. For otherwise we could take another set of representatives, viz. the inhabitants of the ghettoes in the metropolitan suburbs and conclude that the United States are the average Frenchman's dream world. Which would be just as stupid a conclusion. So would it be to conclude something about the average American from a bunch of disoriented kids who brought a gun at school and shot all around them.
As for "refusing to sell transportation [...] to people whos command of the french language is not so great", well, imagine the symmetric situation and consider trying to buy a train ticket (provided there still is such a thing) in the States with a poor command of English. I know, for having helped tourists on both sides of the Atlantic that had a poor knowledge of the country's tongue, that it is never easy. But there is still a higher proportion of people in France who speak English than people in the States who speak any other language, so if I were to use such a simplistic reasoning to determine a country that "hates all things foreign", France would not be on the top of the list. Fortunately, I do not use such criteria; merely because I think the question is meaningless.
socialism is evidently not so good for the freedom of speech in France
The key word is "insofar". Considering that France is far from having anything like the DMCA (in particular, reverse-engineering is quite legal), I could apply a similar reasoning to conclude that capitalism is not so good for the freedom of speech in the United States. But that would be nonsense.
(Ha, ha, only serious.)
Nice try... what about, say, people @aol.com ?
-- Colin
The way I understand it (and I'll try and get confirmation of this as soon as I can), is that it is illegal to make a _profit_ from anything Nazi related, or to promote the Nazi party.
Thus, educational uses are ok, but selling anthing (which implicitly makes a profit) is off. Charging to see an item would also be illegal, but display of such things in a museum is allowed [0].
I will post a reply to this, as soon as I can get some confirmation (may be a few days).
[0] Although entrance fees for such a museum would be suspect.
nah, just use ebay...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Britain is currently being governed by the Labour party, which is officially a socialist party. They even sing The Red Flag at party conferences. And like you point out, even though we have a socialist government, we have a free press, which rather sinks your argument.
Given all your comments about anti-semitism, can I draw your attention to this sentence:
...a country[Israel] of people which hates all things not Jewish.
I do not believe it is a concidence that there is a law against anti-semitism in a country of people which hates all things not french.
Shall we insert "Jewish" into that sentence?
Would that be anti-semetic? Can you see the irony?
Even more ironically, it was just below the statement which made most sense...
That is, the French should not need the help of their government to understand why Anti-Semitism and racism is ridiculious and wrong.
...which I happen to agree with.
But it is naive to say that Europe should "get over it" in reference (even by symbolic proxy) to the holocaust. Nobody should "get over it"; it should be a part of our collective human conscious for all eternity as a reminder of the barbarism that we are capable of. Particularly when we let others decide our thoughts and morals and ethics.
Definitely. I'm still amazed that it actually happened. Given that two generations don't come up with much genetic change, I can only presume that most of us would go along with the holocaust under the same circumstances. Sobering.
Common symptoms include much higher taxes, more government regulation, and more services provided to the citizen by the state.
Whilst the presence of the above does tend to indicate the presence of a more socialistic government, the strength of 'freedom of speech' laws is incidental to the socio-economic[1] model.
[1]I've always wanted to say that.
Would we want foreign users violating our laws?
Yes. In effect.
It is each country's responsibility to block content based on their law. China vs. Geocities as an example, China blocks Geocities because there are some sites that they consider dangerous to the state. In the US, it is legal for these sites to exist, but the Chinese know they have no leg to stand on regarding legal action against geocities. It is not geocities responsibility to block access to China.
French prosecutors have not yet met a knobby clue stick.
The problem with your whacky-weed analogy is that it is technically illegal to transport whacky-weed or seed across national borders. Therefore, the purchaser and seller can and should be prosecuted (if caught) by their local laws, rather than the laws of the country of origin, or even the laws of the location of the eBay server (in this case), who would suffer their own law-suit for hosting the sale of an illegal substance. A three parter.
And that is a shotgun version of why local laws are better than general laws. You can always move if you can't live with them.
the Catholic bartender sez, "Wot is this, some kind of joke?"
George
Cultural discrimination ? I don't think there's anything like this in French universities. They are used to get students from everywhere, from Europe, Africa or North-America especially.
I think you are under the stereotypes that was made by some American tourists who come to France, insist on speaking English with everybody, eat at McDonald and behave themselves like the whole country is a big huge Disneyland and French people are paid staff whose only concern is tourists well being, and then complain that French are "unfriendly" (duh !).
As a heavily-armed American, I assure you the government will take no more rights from me.
When they'll send a whole squad of SWAT to your house, they might not take away any of your rights, but since you'll be dead it probably won't matter that much anymore.
Maybe you should transpose your ideas to another place and another time : the 19th century USA.
So what, the natives like alcohol, and its destroying their culture and way of life, why should they make it illegual ? Let each native people decide for him/herself what he/she likes.
Fast forward, 150 years later : look at what is left of their culture now... sometimes, you HAVE to inforce cultural protections by law.
So what happens if someone posts Nazi texts to freenet?
There are an endless number of ways to transmit data over the internet via covert channels. As long as you have a way to exchange any amount of information from the outside, you can figure out a way to get all of it.
Some of those ways can be made user-friendly, anonymous, ubiquitous, and decentralized. Then it's uncontrollable.
--
Just an observation.
1000 SlashDot sigs
>Of course we still haven't solved the race issue in the US. Last I checked the NAACP was complaining about Jews.
This is something I've never heard of. Could you provide a source for this information? Not only was one of the NAACP's founders Jewish, but the organization was one of the few American groups that spoke out against the Nazi treatment of Jews during the early years of their persecution.
It wasn't NAACP as a group, it was one of their officials. And he subsequently quit. Here's a link.
It's right for the reason you do it, but it's wrong because it can offend someone whose father was shot in the back of the neck by an SS man, while laying on the ground of a pit he was forced to dig.
Offensive != wrong.
Nope.
/. that the French want to censor anything Nazi-related is a gross oversimplification.
The law DOES make it illegal to promote the Nazi party/ideas, but it does not forbid to make a profit from anything Nazi related as long as the seller provides a proper context (e.g.) disclaimer with the item.
Entrance fees for museums about the Holocaust are NOT suspect ; there are plenty of such museums in France, many of them being government-funded. The spirit of the law is that Nazi memorabilia belongs to such places.
This goes to show that the common assumption in
IIRC There was a bit more involved in the case. This "gentleman" also was mailing nazi literature to Germany. Which is I believe what he was convicted for, not a web site.
My Weblog
Why would he want a technical board? Does he not know that once Yahoo has implemented their software with no blocking that it would be incredibly hard to redo that all, with out losing all auctions in France.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that Yahoo decided to ignore the French judge and that the judge is powerless to enforce his judgment?
How could the French government enforce anything on a US-based company, with (erm, I think) US based servers? I see that Yahoo has http://www.yahoo.fr, so the French could shut that down, and then their people would be forced to, oh no!, got to http://www.yahoo.com. The US government does not pursue Holland-based marijuana seed distributors in US court because the seeds are illegal in the States, even though they are sold online, they just prosecute anyone caught with them in the US.
I say Yahoo should just ignore the French. There is nothing the French government can do to Yahoo. Am I just misinformed? If there is something I am missing, someone please reply and correct me.
The servers are in the United States. The business isn't taking place in france, it's taking place in the US. If the French government doesn't want it's citizens to access those servers, then the French government should find some domestic way to keep their citizens from doing so.
It's just not that simple.
The French government is not simply objecting to these items being sold to French citizens. They are objecting to their citizens being able to see the items displayed on the site at all. I don't thing the French government has any right to tell Yahoo that they need to find a way to block French users from seeing something on a server located in the United States. The server is outside their jurisdiction. The only reason Yahoo has to listen to the French government about this is becase they have a division in France. Their French site www.yahoo.fr complies with French law. If the French government doesn't want their citizens accessing those sites, then they should force French ISPs to not allow their citizens access to them.
I don't see this as a bad thing, actually, I think this is the most successful experiment in culturally permissable (by french standards related to this topic) censorship and is neatly contained to the specific topic and service which relates to the people and laws affected.
If the French court were to try to censor Yahoo! in its entirety, that would be a different story.
I'm not.
Given a war between France and USA, who would win?
No one.
The French would see that the Americans have more troops, more munitions and toys of war. They can't compete with that, so they lob a few hundred nukes across the pond. America responds in kind, everybody loses.
Fortunately, this is one case where the rampant capitalism in the West actually works for the good. Seeing the potential collateral damage, the corporations would scramble to pour water on troubled waters...
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
We're coming close to a time when national laws don't make sense for much anymore. We've largely become a global economy, and with mass media covering every little corner of the world we're becoming one global society. For evidence, look at how countries used to ignore who other countries treated their own residents. Now you can't go anywhere without hearing how so-and-so in some far off place is mistreating the residents that live there. I agree that in most of these cases something should be done, but allowing national control largely prevents legal action.
Now, does anyone want to try to come up with a workable international law system?
Addlepated - punk & metal
Part of what you say is true and part of what you say isn't. But the fact remains that if you break Crapistan's laws, then Crapistan may fine you or throw you in jail.
If you give a shit about Crapistan's laws and the results of breaking them, then you are going to have to find some way of filtering what you send to that country. Intentionally breaking the law is another option. It's just not a very good option for large companies who do business in Crapistan.
--
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
It might seem like all Yahoo needs to do is to block all *.fr hosts. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Many international and presumably French hosts have DNS names under the generic TLDs (.com, .net, .org, etc) and not their own country domains. Also, with multinational ISPs like AOL, they could probably just dial into a US dial-in number -- of course, the LD charges would be significant, but they'd then be surfing from a US IP.
And of course, a surfer can always just use an anonymous proxy located in the US.
Without resorting to other,offline measures measures, like credit card address verification for all users, it's pretty much impossible to block users by specific country.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
The only this worse than NAZIs are Frenchmen. If they don't fucking like what is on the internet then let those fucking frogs cut their link to the outside world. Who needs them?
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
We are the only ones who understand than national laws, personal predudice, international debate - mean nothing on the Internet. The Internet is above all debate of nationalality for it is above this. The net has no nationality or laws, it just is. Old world copyright, old world censorship mean nothing. It may take a decade for this to sink in, and some people will just retire and die without ever realizing that the system doesn't apply anymore. wow - I'm ranting.
I would like to see how someone would wear a precious belt buckle he got from his grand grandfather that says `I hate niggers'. Really, no one should be offended, it's simply grand grandfather memory.
Certain things offend people no matter what your personal thoughts about it is. Kiddie porn is not generally accepted no matter how personal it can be to your grand father.
Of course we still haven't solved the race issue in the US. Last I checked the NAACP was complaining about Jews. (I know, "..but Judaism is a religion, not a race" -- YOU explain it to the NAACP!)
Many Jews consider being Jewish their Religion AND their race. I'm not saying they're right, but a good number of Jews that I've asked what their background was, all they've said at first was 'Jewish'.
This issue needs to get addressed. International law applied to the internet had been ignored for far to long. For example, could a person who runs a porn site in the U.S. get arrested by Australian authorities if he were vacationing there?
Extradition? The list goes on.
As so many people have pointed out, the big problem here is that country A is trying to stop someone in country B from doing something which can be seen in country A (and is illegal there) but which is competely legal to do in country B (yes, this is very obvious). Now, the obvious problem here is that the only way country A can get the person to stop doing what they are doing is to go to country B and move to stop them indirectly, which is very long, drawn out and not worth their time.
Their solution? Find a way to make it law abiding in every country. I don't see this is a positive way of doing things, as the arguments get way to convoluted and you get countries backing up all over themselves trying to keep the others happy, much more uneeded diplomacy in my opinion (and the world tends to suck at this anyway, so why make them do more).
I see two possible ways of this working out:
... and the guy that was walking behind them ducks under it.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
Boy, you would certainly need some edu, taining or not.
Hitler was silenced and censored before, but unfortunately this did not work.
I hardly know where to start, so let's just take two facts, early and late in Hitler's career in the Weimarer Republik:
1. Hitler was involved an attempt to overthrow the republican government in Munich. He served nine month.
2. Hitler was brought to power 1933 by a powerful conservative group, the Reichspräsident and a majority of votes.
One of the major obstructions on Hitler's raise to power that did not happen was resistance from the Republik.
('Insightful', my ass)
Censorship on Slashdot
A few years ago, I would've praised anything that would be bad for nazis. Since then, I learned to appreciate the view of many US citizens: That Free Speech is more important than anything else.
I'm sure there will be posts cursing all limitaions on Free Speech and praising the American Way. The American Way also includes quite an amount of ignorance of anything beyond US borders.
This matter is of course not so simple. In Germany, where we again had very recently some attacks from nazis on foreigners, a very similar discussion is going on: What should happen with domains like 'www.heil-hitler.de'? Should nazi webpages be banned and how? Should the major organizational backbone be outlawed?
IANAL, but basis for this discussion are laws banning agitating against minorities, anti-constitutional organizations and display of their symbols (i.e. swastikas).
This in turn is based on the fact that the Grundgesetz (the constitution) is self-protecting: While you can change most parts, the very basic things (highest regard for Human Dignity and Human Rights, Democracy, Federalism, Constitutionality, Division of Powers and the Right to Resist) are immutable. Thus, nazis are proven wrong and can be prosecuted.
Arrogant? The Founding Fathers and Mothers (led by former Zentrum big shot and later Chancellor Konrad Adenauer) were just fed up with democracies crumbling under their very hands for no good reason. So no, they were not arrogant, only self-confident and ready to act against the possible will of the people for the probable good of the people.
We had an opportunity to make a major revision when Germany reunited; we passed. 'We' passed probably because the politicians were afraid to lose power (and thus didn't start to organize the process), but I'm happy as it is. The risk is too high, the gain too low.
Don't assume that nazis are a threatened species in Germany. In fact, certain small parts in the five new Länder are called 'National befreite Zonen' and seem to be very much in their power. Only when xenophobic attacks happen, everyone cries for steps to be taken. (Compare this to the events 1977, when far less threw the country in turmoil.)
Off-topic? Hardly. Of course, the French have their own laws, their very own constitution, certainly their own reasons to be paranoid about nazism, but both countries share some experiences. (In fact, while I mostly detest everything Adenauer stands for, the peace between Germany and France, not ten years after a century of vicious wars between them, is one of the most outstanding acts of statemanship I know about.)
Moral? Perhaps that it is a good thing to learn something from other peoples dirty past.
Censorship on Slashdot
By that logic, the most restrictive country in the world can make the rules for all the other countries. If the Supreme Dictator for Life of Glorious People's Republic of Crapistan declares that it is illegal for the people to view anything on the Internet, should all the service providers just shut down? It's the only way that they can make sure that the prohibited material doesn't cross into the national boundaries of Crapistan...
No need for a panel, I'll give you the technical details for nothing.
Is there any way Yahoo can detect if a client request came from France?
No.
International phone calls, proxies or anonymizers can handle the HTTP.
Mailbox services, post office redirection service or even just getting a friend to forward the stuff will handle delivery of items.
It won't take a French person much trouble to buy some Nazi history. He could move abroad without leaving France.
What if someone in Amsterdam were to post an ounce of marijuana on eBay?
What if? Who cares? I wouldn't be in the least bit upset. There is absolutely nothing that you could put up for auction that I think would make me want to stop. The closest thing that I think of that would make me wobble a bit is stuff like Ivory which is difficult to legally obtain anywhere.
Along the same line of reasoning, I will say this: one thing that is nice about being a Libertarian is that you don't have to worry about a bunch of "what ifs's"? Its all the same answer: "Hands off". Its pretty easy to be consistent.
-k
No one is forcing the individuals who live in France to use English words -- they, as individuals, choose to.
Armed invaders are not forcing anyone in France to renounce their ideals. Rather, the people of France are searching the market place of ideas for what they most want - as any free people should. As a result, the French elite is seeing its myth of self-assured superiority undermined.
Why this is bad? Shouldn't we be happy for the French people? Now they can choose their culture instead of having it dictated to them by laws.
"one treats others with courtesy not because they are gentlemen or gentlewomen, but because you are" --G. Henrichs
Personally, I wish every day that the Union had lost the civil war, and we had three nations - the North, South, and West.
And what about slavery?
It might not be the sole, or even main cause of the war, depending on which historians you listen to, but the ending of it was certainly an unqualifiably good thing.
--
> And what should the civilized world learn from
> this whole debacle? Socialism doesn't work.
The simple fact that you are assimilating France with socialism simply shows that you are absolutely clueless on what you're talking about, and that you can only rely on silly cliches.
Actually it is indeed my last name and it originates from Algeria. Looks like we're homonymous (my email is kalifa@spammers_are_wussies.columbia.edu -you know which part to remove-, we shouldn't pursue this personal conversation on \. since it's offtopic).
Well, I've hesitated between the words "associating" and "assimilating", I was thinking "mentally assimilating". Anyway:
France has a specific history which makes its government quite powerful, and French people put more trust in their government than American people do (but then again, each country has its own excesses: I am regularly amazed by the incredible level of trust that American people put in some of their companies which are just screwing them big time).
Yet, this is not really related to socialism. It is rather called "Colbertisme" (prime minister of Louis XIV), "Jacobinism" (the ultras during the revolution), "Bonapartism" (Napoleon's last name), or "Dirigisme" ("diriger" means "to direct"). This is not really a consequence of socialist ideas which are stronger in Germany and in Northern Europe, for example. The French government was strong and centralized before the spread of Marxist and Keynesians ideas, even after it really became republican and democratic.
Today, many French people sincerly believe that a democratic state/government has a stronger role to play for the public interest, than Americans would think. But, once again, this is not really "socialism". The most socialist country in Western Europe is probably Sweden, with its numerous state-owned monopolies and huge taxes (yet their economy is doing very well, and their level of poverty is simply the lowest in the world, by far). And, for some reason, many people in Sweden strongly reject the French system, because they clearly see the difference with their own "socialism". A difference that many Americans do not see.
I'm French, I'm spending a part of my time in the French academia and another part in the American academia. I really don't get your point about "cultural discrimination". The French have a strong international mentality and are usually very welcoming toward their European or American fellows. So I don't think there is a need to worry.
However, note that Marseille is, say, "specific". It's the less rich of all French big cities, it's very latin and messy. I don't know exactly what you're looking for, but if you're from northern Europe (or from Germany, Switzerland, Austria), the cultural differences with people in Marseille will be much more acute than with, say, Parisians. I personnally like Marseille because it's cosmopolite and fun, and because of the meditarrenean sea, but I wish it were more prospere and active. Another annoying thing is the perpetual ranting about Paris, often seen as too powerful.
Ok, I'm French, and I can tell you that this other French guy is nothing but a wacky paranoid ideologist living in a huge conspiracy theory.
Va voir ton psychiatre, dude.
PS: If I had to choose, I'd rather live in a place where nazi propaganda is censored than in a place where sex is censored. Try to see nudity of hear explicit language on American channels before 22:30 pm.
It does matter where the server is. This is like doing a mail order or telephone order out of a catalog for items that might be banned in your country. If it's shipped and then confiscated by customs, they could arrest the buyer or just destroy the package, but they can't go after the seller.
What France wants to do is ban not just the Nazi items, but also the catalog that lists them for sale. Imagine if mail order companies had to keep track of their printed catalogs, so that it didn't fall into foreign hands.
Your Minnesota gambler is breaking the law because he resides in Minnesota and he is the BUYER of the services not the SELLER. There have been cases where the owners of offshore casinos were prosecuted in the US, but those people were US residents who set up offshore servers with a shell corporation while still managing the operation here.
Manuel Noriega a.k.a. Miguel Sanchez
666 Rua Die Yanqui Imperialists
Bogota Columbia
Even if they identify the sender, it's still a case for the local authorities, not the US DEA. What are they gonna do? Send the army in to invade a foreign country and arrest the suspect? Oops, I guess they would do that.
This method they are trying to impliment is an old one, being that if you control what your community knows, you control how they act.
The new peredigm should probably be: People are clever. Try to control them and they know. Give them free reign on information and they will love you for it. They will trust you for trusting them.
-Effendi
-Effendi
Nazism is a much bigger problem in Europe than NA
Let me start by saying I am NOT supporting Naziism, and that I'm not familiar with non-US laws.
I feel that I must say this: Why is someone expressing their thoughts and feelings a problem? I understand the some groups do so by using illegal methods, but they have a right (in the US anyway) to express their ideas.
I just dont see it a problem if someone is expressing their 1st ammendment right.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.-Franklin
It'd be nice if that were true! Recent crackdowns on online gambling might suggest otherwise, however.
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
The only chance the French language has to avoid being further marginalized (and come on, there's more to their culture than their language! Suggesting otherwise would be like saying Canadians are no different from Americans!) by the internet is to get all the third world countries where French is a major language thoroughly wired.
Numbers are what make a language strong. More people with internet access can read English than any other language, so it's only natural that it will be dominant, to the detriment of other world (and local...I imagine calling French a local language would really piss them off) languages. IMO, the only other language which really has the potential to impose itself on the world right now is Chinese, just by force of numbers alone, should internet access ever become ubiquitous there.
The New York Times (free registration required) is reporting here that a man has been convicted for operating an internet gambling business that took bets from Americans. I would never have predicted this outcome, since he estabished the business in Antigua (where it's legal) and was himself out of the country when the bets were taken. If he weren't an American citizen, I don't believe he could have been prosecuted. I find this ruling disturbing, since it implies that one can be prosecuted according to the laws of one's home country, even if one's activities are legal where they take place. I'm hoping this ruling is overturned, as it's completely wrong, IMO. Using this logic, some despotic regime would be within its rights to prosecute its citizens for criticizing it while in the U.S.
Well, there are presidents of a sort for this. There are extradition treaties between the US and many foreign countries that allow prosecution of some crimes committed by US citizens overseas. Also, did you know the US is one of only two countries in the world that requires its citizens whoe live abroad to pay US taxes as well as the taxes of the country they live in? The other country that does this? Libya...
Sailing over the event horizon
true.. but the taxes they pay to a foreign government are US tax deductible.
[at least as for as the corporate income tax goes, I assume it's the same for individuals] -next time tell the whole story
Well, this is partially true - the US has bi-lateral tax agreements for some countries, where the local individual tax payments are tax-deductable with the US, but this is not universally true.
Sailing over the event horizon
You just said that the internet should be "completely free in terms of content" and that interpol should hunt down spammers. How is that possible?
Abuse != content.
I should be able to visit sites about neo-nazis. I should not find sites about neo-nazis in my mailbox each morning. I should be able to download winnuke. I should not be winnuked, unless I ask someone to do it.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
The indication I got from a lot of the reports I read is that it's not just promotion of articles relating to the Nazi Party but the exhibition, display or sale of any items relating to Nazism.
Under this law, if taken to it's logical conclusion, the entirity of the matertial collected by places such as the Holocaust Museum and projects like Survivors of the Shoah would be illegal to display. Without such displays it is difficult to teach about the holocaust (people need solid objects to back up the words) and so knowledge will die. To paraphase a rather well know saying "Those who do not learn history are doomed to see the repitition of it's atrocities."
Stephen
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
If you want to do business in another place you must obey the laws of that jurisiction. Same between states and countries. If a Deleware corporation wants to operate in Texas they must apply (and pay for) the right to do so. They alos have to follow the law.
Yes, they will give in and compromise with the French, and everything will be lovey-dovey with both Yahoo and the government of France. But my question is, "Why?"
See above
Why is compromise the first thing that both business and government (or organization and government, in the case of most special-interest groups) look to when they clash on any particular topic?
Compromise is by far the most cost effective means of conflict resolution.
Why can't someone of some stature just stand up and say, "Hell no I won't do that, it goes against everything I stand for!"
Go ahead
I'm awaiting the CEO, President, or celebrity that does just such a thing, and planning on backing them 100% despite my opinion of what the situation is.
You are a moron
I would have backed Lars with his stand against Napster if he wouldn't have stood behind the RIAA and requested government action. I would have backed PETA if they wouldn't have called on the government to make a decision regarding the removal of an offensive website. I would have backed Netscape, Sun, and even possibly AOL, but they continue to hide behind the judicial system, and promote fear, uncertainity, and doubt about what a world without them would be like.
Down with the process! Down with representaion! Down with Government! Anarchy Rules!
I'd like to challenge big business, big interest groups, and big people altogether to try something new: Don't take the easy way out. Nowadays, getting the government involved is the wimp's way of handling a problem. Not to mention how much all this "governement" involvement is making us the piss at the bottom of the gutter. The difference between myself and the rest of the accumulation is that I know I'm nothing.
You are the what nothing scrapes of its shoes. You aspire to be nothing.
For the first time in world history, all humans exist under a government in which not a single person reading this message had any involvement in creating.
I voted, didn't you?
For United States citizens, it is our money and our troops being used by foreign countries irresponsibily and without reason.
Collectivly the US owes more money than it is owed. Foriegn goverments are not using our troops. Our government is using our troops for the advancement of the goals of foreign governments. BIG difference.
For other countries, it is those damn Yanks with their freaking "pop culture" and liberal views corrupting society.
The "culture" of the US is only 200 years old. much less influencial than the many thousand years of culture in Europe.
The only solution is for the US to drop support of the UN. US: No problem Other countries: You can't do that!
Doesn't that tin foil hat chafe?
I would like to see a President who would. Unfortunately, Bush isn't the one who would do it. I'm not an isolationist, just someone who notices that the current situation is getting us nowhere, so we need to rethink it.
First try thinking.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
It's totally apparent that French laws should not apply to Yahoo, at least to its English section. Usually registering for bidding requires accepting a contract that defines the court for settlement of possible conflicts (and I guess that the court is somewhere in California or New York).
As to the ethical side, selling Nazi stuff is wrong. I am not a moralist of some kind, but Yahoo really needs to tighten their criteria.
I guess that some legislation has to be passed for the Inernet. However legislation requires a consensus, and looking at the holy wars surrounding Slashdot, it will take centuries to reach one.
In the spirit of trade retaliation, let's block all *.fr addresses from any access to American E-Bay, and also block all commercial *.fr domains from any access to or from the rest of the world. That way we can keep the French quaint, and more wonderful for tourists, like they want to be.
Those who won't come out and play, can close themselves in and wither away (and softly hum La Marseillaise).
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
It doesn't matter where the servers are. Doing business with someone while they are on French soil brings on French jurisdiction. It's the same reason why someone in Minnesota who gambles with an offshore internet casino is still breaking Minnesota law.
Passing a law that makes no sense and/or is impractical is not new. If someone breaks it, they are still "breaking the law". But it's still useless and stupid and won't work.
Live to be Moderated
Even if you could somehow hold Yahoo responsible for the information that flows through it, everyone knows that keeping people from getting Nazi stuff from Yahoo auctions wouldn't stop the spread of Nazi stuff. And even if someone is keeping it as a "collectible" what does it matter?
I had a professor in college who collected WWII memorabelia, he had two little flag holders which were used to hold miniature flags. These were once the property of Adolf Hitler and were set out at state banquets, one flying the Nazi flag and one flying Hitler's personal banner. Does this mean my prof was a neo-nazi?
I think the judge is asking for something that is impossible in practice and silly in theory. Sure let's wipe out all traces of the Nazi's existance, then when someone in the future starts down the same path they did, we won't remember where that path leads.
As Rafiki told Simba "The past can hurt" but I think the important thing to remember here is, if you forget the past, you are doomed to repeat it.
Steven
-- I have marked myself unwilling to moderate-- I don't have other accounts to artificially inflate the karma of
It's possible that some institutions may learn to develop tools to control technology as fast as the public can develop tools to get around them. But as concepts like geography become obsolete, so will institutions like "France" that use them as their prime distinciton.
In america, is being a Communist still illegal?
I don't know about you but, even as a Jewish man disguised by a WASPy last name, I wouldn't want to walk around the country seeing swastikas on everything even if they were designed to destroy neo-Nazi solidarity!
(Actually it kind of reminds me of the "fake song" problem which could bring down Gnutella and Freenet. False swastikas would certainly be a huge hassle for the Nazis, judging by my extensive experience as a music pirate!)
Ignorance is temporary, stupidity is forever.
What I want to know is, what would France do if Yahoo said, "erm...no, monsieur judge." I mean, isn't it France's responsibility to handle this kind of thing? Are they gonna send the French army to Yahoo! headquarters? Make Jerry Yang an international fugitive?
The more general question is, "what powers to countries have over the behavior of corporations that are doing business in other countries?" In the us, we face this all the time: insurance companies based in Bermuda, Swiss bank accounts, etc., and we don't seem to be able to do anything, even when their activities violate our laws.
If the judge decides, "yup, that's against french law. You're gonna have to cut that out." How in hell is he going to enforce it? I would think the only thing you could do is make it france's responsibility to filter out all the content they don't like, but what do I know?
just asking.
jeb.
I think we also should be mindful of the fact that ISP shouldn't be responsible for the way people use thier products (Napster). eBay and Yahoo shouldn't be expected to police everything that goes across their site. If I'm French and posting or buying Nazi memoirabilia, then I am doing something illegal, not Yahoo or eBay. Same thing if I'm American and I buy some marijuana from Amsterdam. It's a matter of responsiblity. I think this all comes down to the fact that in the public eye it is more acceptable to attack corporations than individual people. The RIAA and Metallica have both frequently stated that they do not intend to do anything about the indiviual users of Napster. Why is this? Because the users are doing nothing wrong? No. Because once a person is 'attacked', the public realizes that they too could fall victim. Then the heads start rolling. I'm sure that once the French judge reviews all the technical facts (you can't tell Americans what to do, there's no way to be sure if someone on the internet is not from Frace) he'll come to the correct conclusion. (Unless this is like that Italian judge that ruled that women couldn't be raped while wearing jeans since an attacker obviously counldn't remove a pair of jeans without the woman's help.) But anyways, the French haven't revolted for awhile, maybe they just need a good reason.
The French law says that it's illegal to "display for sale," within France, Nazi-related items. One question facing the parties in this case is, where exactly is the 'displaying' happening? In Yahoo's shoes, I'd be arguing that the data for the items reside on my U.S. servers, and that the 'displaying' is happening there. It would be the same as if I erected a big banner across the border in, say, Spain, offering Nazi memorabilia for sale. Someone standing in France could read it, but I would not be violating French law just because they can see it. And French Customs officials would still have the ability to prevent Nazi memorabilia from entering at their borders, even if someone managed to buy it.
In furtherance of my argument, I'd cite any instances in which Yahoo had been required to remove items whose sale would violate U.S. law, but not necessarily the laws of other countries. Any case where this happened would be indicative that the law that should apply is that of the U.S., where the servers reside.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Actually, it's 'precedents' in the context in which it was used.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Here's another article (free registration required) from the New York Times on this subject: "French Nazi Memorabilia Case Presents Jurisdiction Dilemma"
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
IANALFF (I Am Not A Lawyer From France)
If someone from Amsterdam posted a sale for Marijuana on EBay, than the sale should be taken down. The server and company are based in the USA and therefore subject to US laws as an accessory to distribute a known controlled substance. Now that also means that the seller can not be extradited if this an acceptable practice in Amsterdam. However a buyer from the US could be prosecuted for trying to purchase a known controlled substance.
Warning - Potential Stereotype:
I believe that some countries (Middle East?) prohibit the public display of exposed skin by their women. Does this grant them the right to have porn sites shut down in other countries?
So here is how I break it down:
1. Your country governs your country's servers
2. Your country governs your country's citizens
You can't enforce social and moral values on another country.
But..but..that would require them using judgement and common sense and taking responsibility for their own actions and making their own descisions and they wouldn't be able to blame somebody else for what they do and..and..they wouldn't be able to walk around all their lives in a hyptnotic like trance having handed all of their self-authority over to a commanding set of laws..and..and......omigod! Help! It's all one big horrible nightmare! Don't let it happen, daddy!
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
Truly! I have an early copy of Rudyard Kipling's stories with two swastika on the cover. The symbol was a good luck symbol for several of the world's cultures for a thousand years before Nazis got ahold of it.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
So, by that reasoning, any US based business with a phone could have the same problem Yahoo is having.
That's not the way it works at all with other forms of communication, and nor should it be for the internet. Yahoo is a US based company. If some French person is buying, or even requesting information about, Nazi items, then it's the French person who is committing the French crime on French soil, not Yahoo.
Right. The person in Minnesota is breaking the law. NOT the offshore casino. What the casino does is perfectly legal on some little island somewhere, just as what Yahoo does is perfectly legal in the US.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
For I command you today to love the Internet your God, to surf the Information Superhighway and to keep His commands, decrees and laws; then you will email and spam, and the Internet your God will bless you in the online auction you are entering to bid.
Ignorence is blis.
Ironically, enforcing such a law brings them closer to that despicable ideology than any purchase of a relic would. Education, not legislation.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I don't understand. What damage is caused by the Nazi memoribilia? Who are the people claiming to be hurt by it? Those items appear to be simple historical artifacts: "Look at what we have overcome in the past!" How could that be less than educational?
The French with authority over a US entity... [shudder]
Seriously though, do the French [1] think it is in any way reasonable to hold someone else responsible for their own moral hang ups? and [2] do they really think they can manage a feat that, so far, not even the US has managed to do?[the feat is to curtail the activities of a large, high profile, and well funded American corporation. M$ gets declared to be abusing monopoly powers, and keeps right on abusing them anyway, does anyone really think Yahoo will stop selling, or allowing the sale, of things that can command high prices just because a government tells them not to?]
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
However, this raises the whole issue of censorship
You don't fight Nazism by practicing its methods.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
If the french courts apply this to Yahoo, eBay will follow suit.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
University of Marseille
If this University is indeed in Marseille, you shouldn't worry. Take a walk in the Bourse, it should cure any homesickness you have for the typical american suburban mall.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Not for sale, but used as example. These are crown type silver coins from the 1700's-1800's, counterstamped with swastikas, among other chinese characters. To see more info on other meanings to the symbol Mr. Hitler degraded follow this link.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Sorry I wasn't more clear, the Bourse in Marseille is a mall.
I was there about 8 years ago and couldn't find a shirt or anything suitably french to take home as a souvenir/gift. Nothing but american fashions, sharper image, et al.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
[you can fight it by bringing skinheads out into the open and showing people how ridiculous and small-minded they really are]
Exactly what I viewed on Larry King, on CNN, a few years back. Some skinheads, of the aryan wannabe type, were touting some propaganda about races, etc. and point-blank Larry informed them that he was jewish and what problem they had with that. They looked very foolish and I imagine they wanted to go back home right away after that. Larry & CNN gave these imbeciles, and their alleged academic piece full airing rather than censor any bit.
The actions of the french laws serve to mystify this trash and give it some sense of credibility with a conspiratorial manner.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"France is like a 9 year old: they always ask you to do the dirty work when they get picked on, and then whine until they get their own way"
Help me through college please!
And isn't the COPA or whatever a US law that everyone somehow is supposed to be subject to? If I we're to host a site in Canada (where I live), and didn't comply with that child protection stuff (like having written permission to participate in forums and retadred stuff like that) could I be charged or have my site taken down? Same goes with kiddie' porn. If I lived in BC (where it's legal I think) and had a site with that stuff, could I somehow be charged in the states where's it's illegal? - Ryan
"Everyones gotta' be something / Me I'm stupid / It's all I ever wanted to be" -MGB
Yahoo shouldn't be the one that has to filter out all traffic from France. They are, after all, a US company. If France wants to make a law (or already has a law) that prohibits what their citizens can and cannot view, make the Frech ISPs filter the content. That way, Yahoo can keep their web sites open to everyone who want to see them and has a right to see them, and the French government could enforce their law by keeping track of the French ISPs.
"Error of opinion maybe tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." - Thomas Jefferson
Nazism is a much bigger problem in Europe than NA, and I think the French authorities should be very firm about Nazi auctions on Yahoo. However, maybe it would be more effective for the French gov't to block Nazi related pages, much as the Chinese government blocks politically sensitive pages and the Singaporean gov't blocks porn. However, this raises the whole issue of censorship, particularly of a fluid medium such as the internet, in the country that first brought Liberation to the People on the Continent, a country with a fervent love of freedom of expression
Lemurific!
This brings up the issue of 'swastika rights'. As everyone has heard innumerable times, the swastika was originally symbolized good luck, long life, and the sun. It has a very deep history and significance for many people, as well as being a very cool looking thingy. Mayhap it is time for odinary people to rescue the swastika from Nazi-inspired ignomy?
Lemurific!
Being prosecuted, fined, ruined, getting your degrees annulled and eventually being jailed, for having wrong thoughts or simply for knowing the truth or even buy the wrong things; is considered as a very normal thing in France. Well, who could disagree, since this is done in the name of democracy, it really is OK!? In case you had any doubts, we have communist ministers, from the very same party that supported Stalin (and even Hitler for some time, but this is officially forgotten), in our government. Haven't these guys already proven what great democrats they are! The only thing that France misses at this time is an official ministry of truth to give us direction on what we may and may not think. Like in most countries, the French media lie to people. But in France we are ahead of countries like the US. We are not allowed to question these lies. Why waste the tax payers money! (In Europe the media are subsidized by the government) If you to know to what extend we are being fooled, read the book my friend David E. Duke wrote, My Awakening. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell.
Not really, as contrary to the common belief on /. advertising the sale of marihuana is against Dutch law and the hypothetical Dutch E-bay would be forced to stop very quickly!
(For people getting cold feet and seeing their trip to Amsterdam blow up in smoke (:-), it is perfectly legal in the Netherlands to possess up to 5 grams of drugs for personal use. It is also legal to buy those 5 grams.)
This brings me to an interesting point in this discussion which is an experience a US friend of mine had in Amsterdam, which was that the Amsterdam shopkeepers refused to sell him seeds for plants. They only refused this to Americans. When I asked to owner how that came about, he explained that he would get shut down if Americans would get caught carrying his seeds, and would tell the police where they bought it.
The Dutch police can shut down a point of sale of Marihuana at will (remember, it is illigal to have more than 5 grams in stock). It is however legal to possess those seeds inside the Netherlands. Apparantly the US police can force the Dutch police to implement US law inside the Netherlands, not for buying marihuana, but for buying those seeds that are obviously intended for growing and prospering in the US, but by no means neccessarily so. Although this is a situation that is carefully kept out of court and is by no means legalized, it does have some bearing on this case in that here we have an example where national (US) law is implemented in a different country (The Netherlands). The point of sale is in the other country, the buyer is a citizen of the first country, the offense to national law (bringing it into the US) has even not taken place!
As far as I know such a situation is unthinkable between two US states. Don't know exactly what to make of it in the context of the French vs. Yahoo case as it is not court stuff, but it is worth a ponder.
The Nazi says, "I'm really sorry about what happened; I was just following orders!"
The Rabbi looks upwards with a puzzled look on his face.
The Nazi says, "What, what is it?"
The Rabbi grabs a heavy pewter pitcher and brains the Nazi with it.
The Bartender says to the Rabbi, "What was that for? I thought Rabbis were peaceful, and I'll have no trouble from anyone in my bar!"
The Rabbi looks upwards again, and tries to explain.
"I'm really sorry, I was just following orders!"
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Yahoo is based in the US, pays US taxes, operates according to US laws. Why should France have any say in suing Yahoo over activities that are legal in the country Yahoo is established? France should go after its own citizens for buying/browsing this stuff, if they are going to go after anyone. This would be like an American going to Amsterdam and buying illicit drugs and the US suing the drug dealer in Amsterdam! No, if you are going to fuss about it, go after the American who broke the law, not the drug dealer in Amsterdam who was following his country's laws.
If this holds up what's to stop small countries from using something like this as a monetary advantage? A small country quietly makes a law that it know a rich, American Internet company violates (say distributing pornographic pictures). They let the violation occur for a while, make a little fuss, but the Internet company doesn't do anything... then BAM, sue the company for millions.
This whole case shows two things:
</rant>
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
The way I understand it (and I'll try and get confirmation of this as soon as I can), is that it is illegal to make a _profit_ from anything Nazi related, or to promote the Nazi party.
Not at all. It's perfectly legal to make a profit from selling non offensive Nazi-related stuff (you can sell Mein Kampf with the proper disclaimer).
It's amazing how so many people specualte and give opinion when they obviously don't know shit about the topic.
The French government is not simply objecting to these items being sold to French citizens.
This is NOT about the French government. This is about a crappy jewish student union abusing the law and justice to get free publicity. Nowhere in this case did the govt intervene or comment. Some losers (UEJF) sued, the tribunal is hearing their request, there is no sentence yet, there is no govt intervention, there is not much actually yet.
ERR, maybe on a different planet, in a different galaxy, but there's not such thing that I'm aware of.
The indication I got from a lot of the reports I read is that it's not just promotion of articles relating to the Nazi Party but the exhibition, display or sale of any items relating to Nazism.
Then you understand it wrong. Look, this trial is stupid enough in itself, you don't have to add your own to it.
Did you realize that this entire article violates Godwin's Law?
It would depend which way the swastika points...
I have a photograph of an altar in Lapland (I'm part Finnish) which has two swastikas on it - pointing the same direction as the Nazi Harakrista. They're blue - the same colour as that used on Finnish miltary aircraft until the end of the Continuation War.
In the semi-pagan folklore that prevailed in Northern Europe until a few hundred years ago, the swastika was a symbol of the sun. It's unfortunate that it has become a symbol of hate for so many people.
Chris
I do have a file of all IP blocks corresponding to network located in France, extracted from the RIPE database. It's not based on DNS. Of course, there are perhaps a few networks located in France that are not in that file, but the vast majority of them is inside.
Turning that file into a filter is just a matter of programming (I have other things to do now, but I might do it soon if needs be).
It's possible to get a file containing all IP blocks registered by a French organization. Just extract it from the RIPE database. Proof: I did it.
French law prohibits promoting material that encourages racial hatred (and other crimes - for instance you cannot write in the press that a certain person should be murdered).
The reason why nazi paraphernalia is targeted like this is that most people do not like nazis parading. Let me explain a few things to you:
All this, admitted, happened because of the complicity of an ultraconservative puppet government put into place by the nazis.
Now you understand that when an holocaust survivor sees nazi stuff, he gets a bit nervous and wants it banned. Yes, there are some holocaust survivor still alive today. And many people feel the same way.
It happens too in the US. Several US criminals (take Ira Einhorn, for instance) have been sentenced to steep civil penalties so that they can't make money out of money or film deals. What is the reason? People do not want criminals to parade, nor do they want people to parade with instruments of crime.
Now, perhaps the injunction on Yahoo was clumsy (I think it is). But you can see it does come from very understandable human reasons.
Except for the fact that you have private property. You have a social-welfare government, not a socialist government.
And British "free press" is seriously in doubt anyway, considering the Offical Secrets Act, no constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech, no written constitution period. But that's the difference between a subject and a citizen, I guess.
How about it didn't have anything to do with the war? Hey, Lincoln didn't even issue the Emancipation Proclamation until September, 1862.
Let's face it, the _expansion_ of slavery was the killer political issue. The northern states were overpopulated and lacked farmland. Opening the new territories to slavery meant huge plantations not little farms. Don't think for a minute that your typical white northerner cared a whit for slaves. Basically this issue devolved into a states-rights fight that turned into a shooting war. Slavery was an issue, but the issue was "How much?" not "Let's not".
Big-picture, I think the Marxists are right on this one. This really was a conflict about _economics_ (slave economy vs. capitalist economy) not how to love your fellow man.
Of course we still haven't solved the race issue in the US. Last I checked the NAACP was complaining about Jews. (I know, "..but Judaism is a religion, not a race" -- YOU explain it to the NAACP!)
Actually, the underpinning of freedom from government tyranny is private property. When the government can take things away at will (socialists call this "redistribution", everybody else calls it "confiscation") they can pretty easily deny you you're right to speak, since the means of communication are generally owned or dominated by the government who saw fit to confisicate, er, redistribute those items first.
As an intellectual exercise, name the leading free-press sources in socialist North Korea and Cuba. Now, do the same for the United States and Britain. Compare lists. Which is longer? Surprise! It's not the one from Havana and Pyongyang.
The only logical solutions are
- Repeal it as an unenforcable law
- Set up a national firewall like China
Anything else will just lead to more inconsistencies and hypocrisy. Because when you get right down to the bits, the entity that is transmitting the hate speech in France is some common-carrier router.---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
(Obvious rejoinder:) In America you don't seem to be taught much History. Hitler was not silenced and censored. He was put in prison, true, but that was for attempting to take power. He wrote Mein Kampf while in prison. The book was not censored until after the war; nor were his ideas or his party made illegal.
There is no law against "anti-semitism" in French. There is a law stating that it is illegal to deny the existence of a genocide. Now though I disagree with your arguments, I agree with the conclusion that such a law is utterly stupid, and, above all, very dangerous (it has given rise to a frightening witch hunt, and some genuine historians have been brought to justice because they had said certain things about the Armenian genocide, I think). There are also laws against discriminations in general, but nothing specific against anti-semitism; those laws I am rather in favor of.
As for "a country of people which hates all things not french", this is a gratuitous troll, and your post should have been moderated down for that if not for anything else.
there were no hypothetical questions?
No no no. That's someon's sig.
What if someone in Spain was using a loud speaker to auction off Nazi paraphenalia near the French border in such a way that the French people could hear? What would the judge do? He should do the same thing in this case.
What if someone from Amsterdam floated a hot-air balloon advertising certain adult services such that the picturesque advert could be seen from other countries where such pubi^Hlic displays were other-than-legal? What would the judge do then? He should do the same thing in this case.
If your country has laws that makes it illegal to see information then contact your leaders and inform them that they need to round up every person with access to the internet and throw them in jail. If there is also public access to the internet, then inform the leader that they need to round up everyone in the whole damn country, including themselves, and lock up the whole bunch. Stupid problems require stupid solutions afterall.
BTW, I do draw a distinction between having access to information and acting on it.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The judicial branch of the US government made a ruling that ICraveTV was performing illegal acts even though it had no jurisdiction to say so and was completely legal in Canada.
-- iCEBaLM
No, it is good for diffrent nations to have incompatable laws (not allowed to censor Nazis in the U.S., but required to censor Nazis in France) as this limits the multinationals and exposes people to diffrent laws and clutures. I'm saing that we do not want the internet to be governed seperatly from the countries.. we do not want the internet to be governed at all.. at least not in a traditional sence of the word, i.e. the powers to censor, tax, regulate, standardize, etc.
We want to internet to be governed by it's protocolls which we want to be developed by an academic style meritocrasy, i.e. that's cool lets write some programs which use that and see what happens. The internet needs no government.. only research and development.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
I'm dutch, not french. but on the nazi-related stuff: in the netherlands 'Mein Kampf' in it's original form is outlawed. However.. an annotated version is NOT. Basically it has some views added from the other side(tm). It's not censored. The laws here are not against nazi-related, they are against Nazi-propaganda, and I wouldn't be surprised if french laws were something like that too.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
saudi arabia just completely blocked all of yahoo for nudity.. btw.. selling marihuana over the web from amsterdam probably WILL get you arrested: marihuana in the netherlands is officially still a controlled substance. Only officially though ;)
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
What would it be illegal to stand on the border and shout into France?
Or, even more accurately, what would it be illegal to say over the telephone in France, regardless of where you are?
Or, yet more precisely, what would it be illegal for you to put as the outgoing message on your answering machine that anyone in France might call and hear?
Happy Premise #3: Even though I feel like I might ignite, I probably won't.
I had heard some of the people in the region still consider themselves occitan?
Yes and rightly so. France annexed the south of France in the 13th century. Occitania has always (and still is) much closer culturally speaking to Catalonia (i.e. Barcelona et. al) than the north of France. Unfortunately, in France, it seems only Paris count for something.
I'll do it for cheesy poofs.
It would depend which way the swastika points...
does it point the way of the Nazi, or does it point the way that Greek crosses as well as other religious symbols point?
Again, it also has to depend on the context of the item. A swastika is just a symbol, but if the symbol in question relates to the Nazi party, then that would be illegal
God, the number of clueless posts here is amazing. Here go a couple clues to work with people.
1) National laws apply when a crime is commited inside of nation.
2) The only way the internet can affect a national law is if the transaction occurs across national boundaries.
3) If you're going to do international transactions you have to obey all applicable laws for each nation involved.
My personal opinion is that if Yahoo can't work with French laws, then they shouldn't have any business dealings there.
Secondly I think it's obvious that E-Commerce sites like are going to have to implement a form territory restrictions to ensure that they don't sell material which is banned in certain territories. This is not that big a deal, these companies need to respect the law of whatever country the customer is in.
--
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
Be insightful. If you can't be insightful, be informative.
If you can't be informative, use my name
It doesn't matter where the servers are. Doing business with someone while they are on French soil brings on French jurisdiction. It's the same reason why someone in Minnesota who gambles with an offshore internet casino is still breaking Minnesota law.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Here are some interesting links talking about the issue.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
So? We're talking about jurisdiction relating to international transactions taking place via the Internet - not whether the law itself is stupid. Like another poster noted, the situation is similar to that of offshore Internet gambling.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
In this case, Yahoo! will have an interesting decision to make. They can
get rid of Nazi-related auctions,
get rid of French users, or
come up a means to prevent French users from accessing Nazi auctions.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
The technology to block French users from the US based Yahoo is not just "immature".. it's flat out impossible.
The only good sign is that the French judge may, like his American counterparts, eventually "get it" and leave foreign sites alone.
Whether it is "right or wrong" or not I wear an SS belt buckle in remembrance of him.
It's right for the reason you do it, but it's wrong because it can offend someone whose father was shot in the back of the neck by an SS man, while laying on the ground of a pit he was forced to dig.
Censorship on Slashdot
My point wasn't that the purpose of the civil war was to end slavery, but that abolition was a direct result anyway. Lincoln made it clear that he'd rather keep the union together than end slavery; the emancipation proclamation occurred when it was obvious that there was no peaceful way to do this.
Of course we still haven't solved the race issue in the US. Last I checked the NAACP was complaining about Jews.
This is something I've never heard of. Could you provide a source for this information? Not only was one of the NAACP's founders Jewish, but the organization was one of the few American groups that spoke out against the Nazi treatment of Jews during the early years of their persecution.
--
To an extent, I think they do. What if someone in Amsterdam were to post an ounce of marijuana on eBay? It would get taken down, because it's not legal to sell here. We're obviously respecting US laws. Now, granted, the French are pretty silly - but they *may* have a legitimate gripe about having their laws respected.
PS -- Just kidding about that silly French remark.. :)
If it ain't broke, it doesn't have enough features yet.
One rather successfull tactic in combating the power of these oppressive symbols (And amongst alot of sociologists and psychologists there is agreement that symbols can really disturb people), is to reconfigure them.
Take the word 'bitch'. Traditionally it's kinda signified 'stupid bad woman'. But a lot of women have been using it to mean 'powerfull woman'. Ie my sisters proclaimation that she is 100% bitch and proud. The same thing applies to the word 'n*gger'. Many afro-americans have been using it in a non derogatory way. It's reclaiming the signifier, and saying 'screw you-- this word is mine now'. It's also a type of pointer math.
The problem is however, that while a swatstika did indeed mean 'peace' to budhists many moons ago, it now means 'naziism' to most people.Trying to dislodge the signified and reconfiguring this has a grave danger of leaving no pointers to the fact of nazi horror, and before long histories little 'java garbage collector' is gonna come along and we'll forget one of the most important lessons of the last 100 years.. That is, that extreme (maybe all) right wing politics can lead to absolute horror.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
That's the worst solution I've ever heard.
Personally, I think one government is inadequate even for a single nation. Remember those medical marijuana bills in the U.S. that passed by an *astounding margin* (like 75-25, which is almost never seen, and beat school bonds) in Nevada, Alaska, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oregon, and (I think) 3 more states? They were all in the West.
Personally, I wish every day that the Union had lost the civil war, and we had three nations - the North, South, and West.
To those of you who are British, I'd like to ask - despite all the really ugly wars you had throughout this century, do you really think it would be better to have been sharing a government with France and Germany all along?
As for the internet, it needs to be strictly controlled for abuse (I wouldn't mind Interpol hunting down spammers and script kiddies, yanking their 'net connections, and putting them on "don't use a computer or you'll be seeing prison time" parole for, say, five years), and completely free in terms of content. Local governments should decide whether they want their citizens to have access to things that are completely free in terms of content. If France doesn't like Nazi material on the internet, it should just cut all the cables going to the country. In my mind, it's that simple.
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he deems himself your master."
IIRC, several years ago an American who had set up a white supremicist neo-nazi website went on vacation to Norway (I believe) where he was immediately arrested and deported to Germany, where any nazi or neo-nazi propaganda is illegal. The American was tried and convicted and had to do jail time. The U.S. government did not intervene.
What does this mean for Yahoo? The French government has no legal authority to require Yahoo to remove any material from any US-based servers. However, the French authorities have every right to arrest, try and convict the Yahoos responsible, should they set foot in France. Due to European extridition agreements, Yahoo execs (Jerry Yang comes to mind) would be well advised to avoid that European vacation.
----------
Something cleverWow! My very own imposter! I'm impressed (not).
Well, I have no need of another account... why were you posting what you were posting? You weren't doing what other imposters tend to do... you were just posting (if a bit inane) normal stuff.
Since when is it my responsibility as an entity of a seperate state to uphold and obey the laws of another state? I am very interested in the official response from Yahoo.
Yes, they will give in and compromise with the French, and everything will be lovey-dovey with both Yahoo and the government of France. But my question is, "Why?"
Why is compromise the first thing that both business and government (or organization and government, in the case of most special-interest groups) look to when they clash on any particular topic?
Why can't someone of some stature just stand up and say, "Hell no I won't do that, it goes against everything I stand for!"
I'm awaiting the CEO, President, or celebrity that does just such a thing, and planning on backing them 100% despite my opinion of what the situation is.
I would have backed Lars with his stand against Napster if he wouldn't have stood behind the RIAA and requested government action.
I would have backed PETA if they wouldn't have called on the government to make a decision regarding the removal of an offensive website.
I would have backed Netscape, Sun, and even possibly AOL, but they continue to hide behind the judicial system, and promote fear, uncertainity, and doubt about what a world without them would be like.
I'd like to challenge big business, big interest groups, and big people altogether to try something new: Don't take the easy way out. Nowadays, getting the government involved is the wimp's way of handling a problem.
Not to mention how much all this "governement" involvement is making us the piss at the bottom of the gutter. The difference between myself and the rest of the accumulation is that I know I'm nothing.
For the first time in world history, all humans exist under a government in which not a single person reading this message had any involvement in creating.
For United States citizens, it is our money and our troops being used by foreign countries irresponsibily and without reason.
For other countries, it is those damn Yanks with their freaking "pop culture" and liberal views corrupting society.
The only solution is for the US to drop support of the UN.
US: No problem
Other countries: You can't do that!
I would like to see a President who would. Unfortunately, Bush isn't the one who would do it. I'm not an isolationist, just someone who notices that the current situation is getting us nowhere, so we need to rethink it.
And to answer a previous poster's question:
If someone wanted to put a kilo of Mary Jane on Ebay, and it was illegal here, Ebay would be required under US law to stop the auction.
If someone wanted to put a kilo of Mary Jane on an Amsterdam auction, and the US didn't like it, the US can shove it and forget about the whole deal.
I don't see what is so complicated about it. If someone is doing something I don't like, I have the ability to speak, to request, to announce, and to plead.
If after that they still want to do it, I should mind my own fscking business and go about my life.
It doesn't get any simpler than that.
about freedom of speech, is that everyone is all for it as long as its speech that does not upset them..
I say you dont make ugly problems like facism go away by trying to hide them in the dark - Shine the light on them and expose them for what they are. Stupid.
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Vices - what I lack in originality, I make up for in volume.
It is similar to laws regarding nudity in content accessible by children in the US, which, by European standards, are strict to the point of being absurd.
The reason that these kinds of laws exist in Europe is that not only that a lot people who are old enough have suffered from the consequences of racism/national socialism, but also that for the European democracies as they exist after the war, the very reason of existance is related directly to WWII and its horrors.
Especially since the 1960s the moral framework and justification for democracy and European integration has racism and national socialism as a negative reference point. Anything that condones these ideologies is by definition an attack on the European democracies, hence the zealousness with which they are fought within the bounds allowable by a normal democracy
Of course there are grey areas but they are much the same as with the decency laws, you are right in that they are the price of curtailing freedom of speech in a certain direction, but it's a question of priorities. Sander
But fascism by court decree...
I wish Europe would get over this awful era. I've got some nifty items which bear swastikas, which were made at least 100 years before WWII. Would I have to accompany these with some french certificate before selling on Yahoo?
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I am perpetually amazed with Europe's ability to repeat the mistakes of the past. Hitler was silenced and censored before, but unfortunately this did not work. It did not stop Hitler then, and it would not stop a new Hitler now.
The reason for this is that if you cannot reach Point B from a point A that does not exist. If you allow Hate Groups to speak without government interference, then others will have reason to speak and rally against them. That is, the French should not need the help of their government to understand why Anti-Semitism and racism is ridiculious and wrong. I do not believe it is a concidence that there is a law against anti-semitism in a country of people which hates all things not french.
To elaborate, it is very possible that the very existance of these laws against anti-semitism creates anti-semitism by virtue of it's distrust of the morality and sensibility of the peoples it is enforced upon.
In america, we've always felt that Anti-Semetics and racists make themselves look like idiots without help from the government or anyone for that matter. Should Europe choose to continue this trend of censorship, I fully expect Europe to see a new Hitler.
-[ Shanoyu - wtr - planetmofo.com ]-
Heh. Some would argue that the purpose of Second Ammendment is to give the citizens the means to stand up against the government, should they ever need to defend themselves from it or even overthrow it. That doesn't sound like too much of a far-fetched interpretation either, given the times that it was written.
But if one interprets the right to bear arms in that way, then it would include things like tanks, helicopters, and -- good grief -- tactical nukes.
As you can imagine, no one (including me) wants the Montana Freemen to have nukes, so there's a strong incentive for not interpreting the ammendment in this manner, regardless of whether that was its original intent or not.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
This is actually a good sign. The judge has asked for more technical details. Hopefuly it can be pointed out to him the problems.
1) French law makes it illegal to promote items relating to the Nazi party [0], making it illegal for Yahoo to auction nazi items in France.
2) American consitution makes it illegal for Yahoo to be forced to stop (under free speech).
3) Yahoo.fr has pulled the specified aution pages, but french people can still see them at yahoo.com.
So the judge is probably [1] weighing up whether it is a greater wrong to allow some french people to seem these items, or to attempt to force Yahoo to block the french.
One interesting point is that I don't belive [2] that the judge can specify technical details of implementation, just "pull it" or "you can leave it". If he decided to pull it, then Yahoo either have to block *.fr, or a list of all french IP addresses.
The formar is possable, but not complete, the latter is complete, but probably not possable. And let's not start on proxies.
All in all, I think it's good that the judge reailiese that there are technical issues, and is looking into them.
[0] Probably a little excessive, but that's beyond the scope here.
[1] And this is only my opinion
[2] IANAL
Well the deal here is that because the US thinks it controls the world, it also thinks its laws apply to the entire world, so the judicial branch of the US government thinks it applies to the entire world, regardless of reality.
Case in point: ICraveTV, Jon Johansen.
-- iCEBaLM
Disclaimer : I am a French Jew and I live in the US for about 2 years now.
There are several points one needs to think about when you read this whole Yahoo-French story. Let me try to explain them one by one. Some of the points I will discuss have been brought up by Lionel Jospin, French Prime Minister regarding this very story with Yahoo. I really want to emphasize the fact that I am not trying to put my opinion in place, I just want to explain how come the Frenchs can do that.
First, France has been invaded by the Nazi's. When you get the enemy on your land, it leaves pain for a long long time. The Frenchs are still wounded by the war. Far worst than the US.
Second, You guys see that story from an American Point of Vue (point de vue in French). The USA is the country of Freedom, Liberty, the right for everyone to be armed, etc... The US have a much stronger "I have the right to do and say whatever I want as long as I don't mess up with what my neighbor thinks or wants" than the French. You want an example? Look at the topic this story has been put into : censorship. For an American, this whole thing is considered as censorship, as someone trying to keep someone else from expressing his/her thoughts. In France, things are a little bit different. Taboos are not the same. Here, sex in the worplace is taboo (Lewinski affair.), in France Nazi stuff is taboo.
Third : The French's in general, especially the french government have no clue what the Internet is about. The don't get the whole picture. They want to translate CD-ROM with cederom. Email -> mel. Does it make sense ? Of course ... since they don't get it. They see the Internet as something new, frightening, that is going to eliminate their culture and they don't really like it. 15% - 20% of the houses in France have access to the Internet. This can explain that.
When they issue some ruling like this one, they are misinformed. They think that technicaly Yahoo can filter French people with 95% accuracy. Well, I am a Network Engineer, and I am wondering how they are going to do that with 95% accuracy. Who tells them that? Looooonnnnnggg story. For more info, look for keywords like polytechnique, Ecole Normale d'Administration (ENA), etc. The Elites in France are the one reponsible for that mess.
I hope this will help you understand why and how they came to that point. Cultural differences are a value in this world (especially my accent with women :) ). It's just a matter of getting the information.
If you read that and wonder what I think of all this, you came to the wrong place. I hate the Frenchs! (there was a song like that somewhere)
Cheers!
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
how do national laws apply to the Internet?
Maybe its best that they didn't. Its nearly impossible for a website about even normal things to follow all the laws out there. Are we to try to block all accsess to all those websites about fishing, nature, etc., because they make some wussy 30 sq. mi. country in Europe mad?
Let the Internet be governed seperatly from the rest of the world. The only trubble is keeping control of that government away from greedy corperatists. They can have their say, of course, which is only fair. However, they should not control it the way the control the US government today.
------
Not a typewriter
> In the French case the official line is to try
> and obscure their collaboration in the Holocaust
> by emphasising the (negligible) role of the
> Resistance.
I'm sorry, but this is just 100% wrong. The French are _obsessed_ with their past when it comes to the collaboration. Indeed, just after the war, they tried to obscure these memories, and, in this hysterical climate, they conducted huge trials where collaborators were hastly and severely condemned.
Today, things have changed. Most of our philosophers, historians, intellectuals, and even lawyers, are looking back at this period, trying to explain, understand ans accurately determine how things worked. Even Papon, who was a minister in the Gaullist government in the 60's, has been judged and condemned 3 or 4 years ago, and is now in jail.
The National Front has built itself on these trauma, this lost confidence, this complex of inferiority that the French seem to cultivate sometimes without any reason. However, its electoral score never went beyond 15%, and has strongly declined during the last years.
I feel sorry for the French. They have tried valiantly to secure their way of life. Everything from trying to limit the inclusion of english words into their lexicon (email, for example) to controlling the ratio of english to french content on french web sites.
The Internet is going to change that. And I wonder how the French will handle their loss of control. There early responses don't bode well.
I respect the French people and admire their culture. I seriously wonder, however, whether it has a future.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
It's an age-old debate. How do national laws apply to the internet? They don't. Will they be made to do so? Without a doubt.
How can an entity comprised of information be governed by a system based on the physical? How can geographic governments rule what is not geographic? As far as information is concerned, and commerce to that extent, geography is essentially obsolete.
Take a look at this old article from the US Treasury that touches on the subject of geography's irrelevance. The relevant question is, how do we convey to stodgy legislators the essential freedom from barriers that earmarks communication today?
---
"The Constitution...is not a suicide pact."
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
But fascism by court decree...
I wish Europe would get over this awful era. I've got some nifty items which bear swastikas, which were made at least 100 years before WWII. Would I have to accompany these with some french certificate before selling on Yahoo?
I agree that the outright rejection of a symbol is a form of fascism, including the Confederate flag dispute in South Carolina... The pre-Nazi swastikas had a different connotation; the swastika (backwards from the Nazi one) is a Buddhist symbol, among other things. Certainly, measures against fascism that employ its very means (book burning, and other limits to free thought, etc.) are foolish and short-sighted; it would definitely be missing the forest for the trees, to use the cliche.
But it is naive to say that Europe should "get over it" in reference (even by symbolic proxy) to the holocaust. Nobody should "get over it"; it should be a part of our collective human conscious for all eternity as a reminder of the barbarism that we are capable of. Particularly when we let others decide our thoughts and morals and ethics.
It's a pretty interesting debate - how do national laws apply to the Internet?
The New York Times (free registration required) is reporting here that a man has been convicted for operating an internet gambling business that took bets from Americans. I would never have predicted this outcome, since he estabished the business in Antigua (where it's legal) and was himself out of the country when the bets were taken. If he weren't an American citizen, I don't believe he could have been prosecuted. I find this ruling disturbing, since it implies that one can be prosecuted according to the laws of one's home country, even if one's activities are legal where they take place. I'm hoping this ruling is overturned, as it's completely wrong, IMO. Using this logic, some despotic regime would be within its rights to prosecute its citizens for criticizing it while in the U.S.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
My grandfather fought in the Russo-Finnish Winter War (1939-1940), and later volunteered to serve in the SS for roughly two years. After his contract was finished, he returned to Finland having fought extensively on the Eastern Front. He then reentered the Finnish armed forces, until he was demobilised in 1944.
He volunteered for the SS because he wanted to a chance to fight the Russians, who he blamed for the loss of his home city Viipuri. I was in total awe of my grandfather as a child, although he never mentioned his wartime experiences. In fact the only time he ever alluded to it was when he expressed disgust at how the American film industry often portrays Axis soldiers.
Now my grandfather is dead, all I have to remember him by is my memories. Whether it is "right or wrong" or not I wear an SS belt buckle in remembrance of him. This doesn't make me a Nazi - I vote Liberal, my flatmate is Jewish and my girlfriend is French.
I don't know what I'm trying to say here - perhaps it's just that the victors in any war are able to write their own version of history. In the French case the official line is to try and obscure their collaboration in the Holocaust by emphasising the (negligible) role of the Resistance. I find this as offensive as German skinheads, so I can't help feeling that this court case smacks of hypocrisy. Perhaps the French should come to terms with their own past (and present in the case of their National Front) before trying to censure what their citizens can and can't do on the Internet.
Chris
There are three very different questions at stake here, and most posts I see seem to mix them all randomly.
First, there is the question of how appropriate this French law is, that forbids the sale of Nazi items. Personally, I think it's a very stupid law. However, please mind when discussing this question that it is unrelated to the Internet, and also that we're talking French law. So the question should be discussed in that context. In fact, I don't think Slashdot is a very appropriate place to discuss that question (yet most posts I see which make any sense refer specifically to that question).
Second, there is the question of the applicability of the law of a certain country to a web site that is not located in that country. Personally, I think it shouldn't apply. However, please note in discussing that question that the nature of the law (good or bad) should not be a factor. Nor should the name of the country. If we agree that the good laws of the United States should apply to non-US sites on the net, then the evil laws of Western Turumumbolia (some obscure country you've never heard of) should apply just the same.
Third, there is the purely technical question of whether Yahoo! can, in fact, filter out (nearly all) French users from their site. And the answer, I think, is yes, it is technically possible. A friend of mine has downloaded the list of all IP blocks for France from the RIPE database: there are a little over 20000, and it would be a fairly simple hashtable lookup to filter them. We're working on a proof of concept. (Even though I must repeat that I disapprove of the use of the filtering. But that is an entirely different question, in fact two entirely different questions as I've just explained.) This would not filter all French users, but with a reasonable approximation it would.
Also, I do wish we had a little less gratuitous France-bashing and gallophobia around. Certainly we have a case of an absurd law, here, but every country has absurd laws, this is not news (I did not see much americanophobia surface every time the DMCA was mentioned, for example). More importantly, the France-bashing in question is utterly offtopic (relevant to none of the three questions I mentioned) and irrelevant (not to mention, a troll and flamebait to some extent).
One of the problems with enforcing a law like this is determining when to stop enforcing it. Case in point: What constitutes a "Nazi-related" item? There are some obvious examples that everybody would probably agree on .. for example, an authentic Swastika flag used by the Third Reich would doubtless be classified as Nazi-related.
However, what about something like Hitler's book Mein Kampf? Is it Nazi-related? Inasmuch as the book is about his youth and his early days in the Nazi party, the answer would probably be "yes." But does it fall under the same general category as general Nazi memorabilia such as flags, silverware, etc.? The book arguably has some value to society because it serves as a window into the soul of one of the sickest, vilest human beings ever to walk the planet. You can't effectively battle what you don't understand, and so you might make the case that the book's intimate portrait of Hitler's mindset and thought processes are more important than its objectionable content.
What about Raiders of the Lost Ark? Is it Nazi-related?
The problem here is no different than it is any other time a government or group attempts to censor or "protect" its citizens/constituents from material that it deems harmful, offensive, or dangerous. "Harmful, offensive, and dangerous" are not black-and-white litmus tests that can be applied equally in all situations. When a government or group takes it upon itself to decide what people can see/say/read/etc., they are engaging in the intellectual equivalent of book-burning. Ironically, the Nazis were very much into book-burning.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground