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?
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
Perhaps a better solution would be for all French users to register with the goverment, so that Yahoo could block their IPs.
A better solution would be for the French government to find a way to prevent French citizens from reaching those sites domestically. They should not be trying to force a company in a different country to enforce their own national laws. Yahoo has abided by their laws on their site which was created for the French. The servers for the site in question is not in France. If the French government wants their citizens banned from accessing content on them, then it's the French government's problem, not Yahoo's. If the French can't block the user's domestically, then they should be able to approach Yahoo and see if Yahoo would be willing to implement some method of blocking their users, but the government better be willing to pay for it.
The French government seems to have a problem understanding other countries don't have to enforce their domestic laws for them. Our government here in the United States also suffers from this delusion from time to time.
If the French government can't deal with this then Yahoo should probably sell their French assets. If they don't have any assets in France, there's probably not much the French government can do if Yahoo choses not to comply with their wishes. If the French govenment doesn't want to play nice, then let them play by themselves.
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
I have heard (back in the dim mists of Boy Scouts or some other "astronomy as armchair entertainment" context) that the crooked shape that is called the swastika in northern europe is derived from the constellation of Ursa Major (alternately the "Big Dipper", or the "Plow").
Four seasons, and if you trace it out against the sky at the same time of the evening during the different seasons, it lays out the shape. I'm probably getting some major details wrong, but the gist is right.
In other News:
France has recently outlawed people looking up and to the north during the period of sundown to sunup. "It is for their own good", said Pierre Le Pieu, played by Richard O'Brien, "We don't want a disturbed population - last time that happened, they ran around and chopped off the heads of the people in power".
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
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