Slashdot Mirror
French Judge Demands Yahoo Censor Auctions
davejhiggins writes: "In this ruling a French judge has upheld an earlier ruling ordering Yahoo! to ban French users from buying Nazi memorabilia from its auction site. Even though the content is not accessible from www.yahoo.fr/ the ruling insists that even "the visualization in France of these objects" on the www.yahoo.com auction site constitutes a breach of French law and orders Yahoo to bar all French IPs from accessing it despite Yahoo's assertions that this would not guarantee that nobody in France would be able to see it." This kind of stuff annoys the hell out of me.
Let the Basque, Brittany's and other groups have sovereign control over their own peoples and control their own boarders and I can have sympathy for the descendants of the Frankish tribes who wish to maintain their language and their unique cultural ideas.
In the absence of such tolerance of devolution, separatist and secessionist movements, I have no tolerance for those who hypocritically denounce "nationalist socialism" and then enact social engineering policies with force of national law.
Seastead this.
But this still doesn't mean that a foreign firm is responsible for what they may receive through a broad-cast medium. My point was that the French jammed US air-waves to avoid such incidents, so they can use similar (and even more sophisticated) methods today.. It should be easy to require by French law to filter incomming operations of objectionable nature. Are they going to order the shutting down of all Nazi propaganda web-sites around the world?
There are two points of view here.. The US FCC, among other things, considers broad-cast air-waves to be hazzardous to minors and otherwise sensative individuals, so they regulate it... Likewise with Broad-cast TV. Other pseudo public media such as Theaters are now getting similar forms of enforcement through the MPAA. The internet is just another broadcast media that many believe should also be restricted.. Or at least provide road-blocks that physically prevent sensative viewers from reaching them... The only way this could truely work is if all web sites were legally bound to post ratings with their web site... Or that all web servers apply a ratings filters on all outgoing HTTP packets.. Violators could be prosecuted... Thus home viewers could simply set their browsers to a max rating and the world is safe once again.
This is unlikely since, only ascii text could be easily filtered / rated. Images would have to be on a voluntary basis. Course, I think web sites are taking the right step in placing initial "over 18 only" pages. I'm sure they'd be willing to rate their entire web sites as X or what-ever to further avoid litigation. It would be a simple extension to the HTTP protocol to add a rating header field. At this point, you could argue a finer grain of rating, which, among other things would rate propoganda such as Nazi's as at a minimum R, or even to be flagged. Course flagging would get into a hairy situation (since you could have an infinite number of them).. And politicians and courts would be independantly mandating their use to the point that the over-head is insane.
This whole point of view is based on the idea that responsibility lies with the broad-caster.
The other point of view is that responsibility lies with the recipient.. This point of view works more like Gun laws.. Do you hold a gun manufacturer or salesman responsible if a parent doesn't lock their gun properly such that a child can't get to it? If your country outlaws public owning of guns, then you can block imports (for the most part).. I personally believe the internet can be viewed more like a gun than a broad-cast PA system. You can filter or modify the data at every node with the internet, much like you have "customs" at every shipping point.
-Michael
-Michael
> but why do you keep on bashing everybody who
> disagrees with this law as misofrancic [...]
I don't. I wanted to bash the "Oh, thanks God we have our holy Consitution and 1st amendment, it could never happen here" morons, and also the usual "the French are a bunch of faggots that got their ass kicked and we bailed them out and now they're bitter and they're fascist and they're language biggots and they're lazy, and they have a reduced workweek because they are socialists dumbasses, and there's no freedom in France blablabla" stuff. Which, if you read the commentaries in this story, are omnipresent. I'm just tired of this ranting, of hearing the same old cliches again and again because a (maybe tiny, but vocal) portion of the Anglo-Saxon people really has a problem with us. Trust me, if you were French, after 1 month on \., you would understand.
Hello? This is the country where you could succeed in a libel action based on the publication of a photograph, merely because a strap hanging from a saddle in the background could be seen hanging between plaintiff's legs Burton v Crowell Publishing. You might be correct that in regard to public figures the bar has been substantially raised by NYT v Sullivan.
The devil is in the detail too, when you consider the court based exceptions to the first amendment (Go back and look at the 'clear and present danger' cases Schenck v. US, Abrams v. US etc), the rather partisan (poltical) nature of free speech becomes apparent. Back then it was anarchists in the US, now its neo-nazis in France ....
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
In my post, I was NOT criticizing (or even remarking on) the french law. What I found ridiculous (and continue to find ridiculous) is the idea that the judge seems to think that the rest of the world should moderate it's content (which is not even hosted in france) to suit this particular french law. I consider it the equivalent of sending nasty letters to newspapers in foreign countries, because someone in france subscribes to them and might be offended by their content.
I have no problem or complaint with countries making laws as they see fit, and enforcing them. But if you want to see things that adhere to all laws within your country, then perhaps you shouldn't be using the world wide web, which contains content from quite a few people who are outside your jurisdiction. As I stated above, you are obviously free to make any laws you see a need for. But, being in a seperate country, we are also entitled to make judgements reguarding which laws we think need passing. And at the moment at least, yahoo, (A U.S. based company) is perfectly within the laws of the country it belongs to.
So, as I see it, france has three realistic options:
Ok, maybe only one and a half of those are realistic.
In turn, Yahoo! should, as a responsible and respectful member of the global community, agree to put these blocks in place and allow the French to maintain and administer them.
No. Should they also ban pictures of women with exposed faces because Iran wants them to? Censorship is never acceptable. Period.
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Say you have a program, like Windows Update, that were to update based on your geographical location by IP (as is sanctioned, for example, in international encryption issues). All a person is doing when they change their IP is fucking up the system.
Personally, I say let them shut out French IPs. Hell, shut the French out of the whole goddamn web. Maybe then, they won't see the "Nazi" images they are touting.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
> Let the French make their own laws...
Fine, but they're telling an American company, in the US, what traffic they should accept. The Judge should be barking orders at French ISPs, not Yahoo!.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
and is limited by our government. (Slander? Libel? Shouting fire in a crowded theater?)
This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. Under that ruling, it's perfectly ok for a totalitarian regime to bar access of its citizens to basic political information, foreign newspapers, etc. This gives legitimacy to suppression of fundamental freedoms and I think sets a dangerous precedent.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
No, I cannot respect censorship, in whatever form it is disguised. Real freedom means everyone should be free to do anything, even things I may not personnally approve, as long as they are not criminal actions per se.
This may be true but I don't recall getting any support last week, when I said it was wrong of the US to try to force their trade embargo of Cuba on the rest of the world.
Ok, you're just ridiculizing yourself. You haven't demonstrated anything, and you know it.
You obviously know nothing about the revolution, nor about the European coalitions that immediately started fighting it (oh, I know, it's always much more comfortable to make the French responsible of anything that goes wrong).
As far as the change of republic goes, you're also ignorant. The constitution was changed peacefully, because it was time for important reforms. On the contrary, America, just like Italy or the UK, whose systems actually also need radical changes as the one that were necessary with the 4th republic, have always been blatantly impotent to change archaic and cumbersome institutions. The American experts in American policy know how this system has become inefficient in the way it distributes power, but nothing can be done. As long as business goes on... Even the electoral system sucks, and nothing happens until an election turns into an hilarious turkey (happy Thanksgiving!).
Last, the constitution in France does not have the same role as in the US. It specifies the way institutions work, not the values, which are specified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which hasn't changed still 1789. It's OK to replace the constituion when the institutions have become unadapted. Under this approach, the American constitution would have been changed at least 3 times since the birth of the US. The only reason why it didn't is that is is considered untouchable, just (and after tremendous efforts) "amendable". The irrational ones are not the ones you think.
I forgot: the fact that you only choose to remember, in the very dense 25 years that followed the French revolution, the 10 months of the "terror", is typical of a certain Anglo-Saxon propaganda that comes from an establishment who doesn't like the idea that their people might have the guts to fight the establishment when they're getting screwed. The anti-revolution propaganda started in the UK immediately in 1789, and it's still part, in a different shape, of the narrative. As minimizing its very deep impact on the whole Europe is also an obligatory attitude.
If there's any stupidity in this court decision, you owe it to the fucking retards at UEJF.ORG, admire their fucking retarded home page with that ridiculous photo, it's entertaining. UEJF means French Jewish Students Union. They're a bunch of crybabies who want people to believe that THEY were in the concentration camps. Nevermind they're 20 year old and still covered with acnee. Anyway, voice your contempt on their online forum that they never read anyway.
The decision is not final, Yahoo is going to appeal, and AFAIK their legal argument was along the lines of "we can't do it" or "we're not responsible for it" (IE it's Yahoo, France that was sued when it's Yahoo, CA. that did it). For the appeal, I guess they will switch legal strategies; basically, the "law" invoked does'nt stand very well as it's only a government decret, whereas, per the constitution it should be a full fledged law as it restricts freedom of speech.
As for our friends at UEJF, let it be known that this bunch of losers are famous for suing like mad monkeys. They have sued the antiracist activist Costes when the incriminated work was, obviously and irrefutably so, sarcastic, a parody, etc ... (it said "give white women to arabs" or something).
A big bunch of whiney, arrogant losers. Let them know what you think. Call them at +33 1 47 34 62 00. Fill their forum with junk. They deserve all the shit they get.
--
Snide comments aside, how is collecting Nazi memorabilia any worse than collecting the memorabilia of any other historical era? If I collect memorabilia of the Napoleonic era does that make me a history buff or a fan of a man responsible for the deaths of millions in the Napoleonic wars? What makes the relics of the Nazi era somehow "worse" to collect? Are they lacking historical value? Do you need to be an accredited curator or historian?
Or is it that a few pinheads (most of which couldn't afford any Nazi artifacts of any real value) like to beat up minorities while wearing swastikas?
I'm all for banning hate speech, in the interest of the constitutional rights of minorities and sensibly minded denizens.
In other words, you're all for giving up your right to free speech. Do us all a favor, move to France where you can check your civil rights at the border. Don't forget to tell all your friends in Greenpeace how well you think the French Government defends the rights of minorities and their political perspectives.
I support France's right to control every aspect of French culture and the behavior of French citizenry. The direct issue, beyond mere censorship, is forcing a company that was not formed under French laws to comply to French laws.
Yahoo.fr complies to French laws. Yahoo.com doesn't. If every website has to conform to every local law, then everything will be regulated by the strictest standards. If we follow this logic all the way through, no website will be able to support Taiwan as a seperate country from China because Chinese law forbids it.
Unfortunately, censorship cannot occur on a case-by-case basis. To go through and say this is bad and this is good opens up issues of content control, 'this defames the government, it gets censored, this promotes the government, it doesn't' And who draws the line? Who gets to decide?
France and its citizens can pass any kind of law they want. Yahoo is not a French company and accesses French citizens only through the CHOICE of the citizens. Nobody forces the French to visit Yahoo.com over Yahoo.fr.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
French judge declares moon is now legally green!
I hate bureaucracy and I hate technology. I give up.
Ok,
First of all, banning French Ips doesn't mean no one in France can access it. They could proxy around if they really wanted to, and I'm sure there are Ips which aren't directly French, which would allow people to get in. Secondly, what if for some reason a French type person WANTS to actually look at and purhaps buy this type of item? What in the world is this coming to? If they are allowed to do this, then perhaps they are also allowed to make CNN block it's democratic pages to people who are in republican states, or vis versa! That's like slashdot blocking it's site from AOL users.
I refuse to hear any arguements that come from the country that took the delicious taste of Vanilla Bean ice cream and turned it into the drab and flavorless French Vanilla ice cream.
Let's make a list:
Pros:
French Kissing
French Fries
French Toast
CONS:
French Vanilla
Silly-looking hats
Recipes that use a lot of yougut and small,dead, stinking fish
French judges
------
Let me give you the lowdown
It kind of makes sense- it's like if somebody posted child pornography or snuff films on a website, the US would do everything they could to make sure Americans couldn't access it. Now imagine if our country had been taken over by Hitler about 50 years ago; I think the government wouldn't be too fond of Nazi memorabilia.
I'm not saying that I agree with them, but it isn't as irrationial as everybody tries to say it is.
-- atomly
not exactly the same: France only tries to regulate the internet for the French, where the US tries to regulate the internet as a whole. The ruling was not: remove the offensive content, but rather: make the offensive content unavailable for known french persons. I don't agree with either, but it's an important difference.
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
While you are an extremely intelligent, gregarious individual with varied interests and a penchant for dialogue
I'm also a person who understands the power in a succinct statement. People don't have a right not to have their 'feelings hurt' in the real world. They do have a right to say just about whatever they want. And for a very good reason, you might want to read Fahrenheit 451 some day. Once we start arbitrarily deciding what is people are allowed to say based on the political content, anything is possible. And I hope you're not going to say that the a government would be capable of making sure the power was only used for 'good'.
If we stopped racist literature now, why couldn't we also block Communist tracts? Or perhaps harbingers of the religion of Islam?
When you teach evolution in schools, are you violating the rights of fundamentalist christens? Are you hurting their feelings?
When you teach the history of world war II, are you violating the rights of holocaust deniers? Are you hurting their feelings?
You may not be an actually be an idiot, but, provided you actually believe what you're saying, you certainly lack some pretty basic critical thinking skills (like generalization, for instance).
Oh, and congratulations on using Dictonary.com's word of the day for august 2nd 1999. Although I don't think you actually knew what it meant...
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Some people are just history buffs, antique collectors, coin collectors, etc.
Get a grip, owning a Nazi's dinerware does not make you a Nazi, nor does it make you evil!
Trying to censor the internet, OTOH, is both evil and moronic.
In a recent ruling, France outlaws all attempts to thwart the law. It is now illegal to find ways of doing illegal things legally.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Gawds, I hope not!
Long ago, I mused on how everyone wanted to eliminate their own piece of the Internet (albeit not on here):
"Americans want to outlaw pornography, Germans want to outlaw racism, the French want to outlaw any advertising that isn't written in French..."
Back then, I had no idea it could get this bad -- I miss my naivete. I really hope this doesn't become precedent. Imagine a world where the communications medium is governed by a combination of the most restrictive codes of law instead of the least restrictive. (China, anyone?)
And then imagine those restrictions slowly leaking off of the communications media into other facets of life.
Some people say the Internet will bring the world together. Assuming the world doesn't tear the Internet apart first, I'm not sure the world is ready to become a single entity yet. At least not until they get their ground rules straight.
And no, this is not just a knock at France. (So 50 years ago you got burned in a war. We appreciate your sacrifices and all you went through. But get over it! It was half a century ago! Get some therapy or something! I mean, look what we're going through in politics now! We plan to survive that...)
If it's a barb at anybody, it's at those countries and companies that think they can use the Internet (or any other media) to either:
a) publish one more form of useless, insincere propaganda -- a single-page of prechewed and committee-approved irrefutable bullshit where everyone else is trying to post vividly interactive and frequently updated encyclopedias, or
b) surf the world and try to put the kibosh on any information they don't like -- browsing everyone else's vividly interactive and frequently updated encyclopedias and trying to black-pen them by judicial order, advertiser protest, or out-and-out cracking.
No, this isn't aimed specifically at France. But if France wants to be that way about it, then welcome to the party, we feel your pain, now take a seat on the front porch and wait until we've had our fun in here.
(Feeling vinegary today, what can I say?)
---
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
please change "french dude" with "french judge that is a representative of french civil law that was created by the population of french citizens".
"some french dude" as you would put it is not causing the problem. Yahoo! is disrespecting a law that french citizens wanted put in place so some extent. otherwise, it wouldn't have become a law.
while we might cherish the right to say or do most anything, others can not be judged by our standards, but we must respect others and the laws they enact for themselves.
When the day when it is possible to see a frontal nudity (or even a breast, for god's sake!) on American TV before 22:30 or to hear 4 letter words, or to see somebody giving a finger without having a ridiculous mosaic on it has come, then maybe Americans will be able to start teaching lessons. 1st amendment, my ass, I've never seen such a bunch of blind hypocriticals.
For us, nazism means deads in our families, collective humiliations, foreign tanks parading in Paris, hunger, poverty, entire villages slaughtered (women and children included), genocide, shame on some of our citizens who became collaborators, etc... So, yeah, we're irrational about nazi icons, Jewish associations are very agressive to keep it that way, and in the end we're probably wrong. But I'd rather leave in a country which is irrational about nazism than in a country which is absurdly puritan about sex, alcohol and related, sorry.
Uh... the French have nukes too... Remember a year or two ago they got a huge amount of protests over them doing nuclear weapons testing in Southeast Asia... Of course the US has a lot more nukes than the French do, probably more powerful nukes, and probably a lot better delivery capability... But we are talking nukes here... Even one or two on-target to US cities or interests would be a bad thing... For that matter, a bad thing for anyone downwind of the fallout...
As a few posters above have noted, France was invaded and captured by Nazi Germany approximately 60 years ago. Emotions related to WWII are still very strong in most of Europe. In France, censorship is apparently far less terrible than remembering WWII and Nazi Germany. I don't think it's possible for US citizens to make comparisons here... we simply don't have any similar events. As time passes, the emotional pendulum may swing back... censorship may become worse than information related to WWII. For now, I don't think this decision should be criticized.
Where can I get ... from the French government (not from RIPE or ARIN) ... a list of the IP addresses to block ... e.g. the ones the French government, or better yet, that judge, thinks are the ones to be blocked.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
You have mine now, for whatever it's worth.
For that matter I think it's wrong for America to have a trade embargo against Cuba, but that's another issue.
It's wrong for America to force it's trade embargoes, drug wars, morality etc. on other nations.
It's wrong for America to invade another country, kidnap it's legal head of state and forcably remove him to the US to face trial for American crimes * especially* when those "crimes" weren't even "commited" on American soil.
When this happened the American people rejoiced, rather than hanging their heads in shame.
The grand Republican experiment ended long before the current election fiasco.
Every year the Congress reads to the full session Washington's farewell address, they all feel a swelling in their hearts as it is read, and five minutes later procede to kick it to death.
Without knowledge of the forbidden symbols, how do you know what symbols are forbidden?
I can imagine the makings of a short sci-fi story. In the future someone realizes that nobody living remembers, and no records exist of what a certian forbidden symbol looks like. So how can we enforce the law, as we don't know the forbidden symbol when we see it?
Well heck, after embracing this kind of thinking, we could extend it. Let's just make illegal saying certian bad things about the government. We won't say exactly what bad things, because we wouldn't want to say them ourselves. Or like a parent or child -- you can't say bad words, but I can't say the bad words myself in order to tell you what they are.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Just when I wish I had some moderation points...
Thank you for this intelligent and thoughtful post.
Someone please mod this up.
What I find particularly disturbing about this ruling is that the judge said that simply letting someone in France look at the material is illegal. A ruling like this lends legitimacy to a government like China or North Korea forbidding access to material it deems unsuitable. This ruling says that goverments can limit access to certain types of information, and I consider that unacceptable. Access to information is a fundamental underpinning of liberty, and anything that would block it is dangerous.
I love it when people think that if they just ban/ignore/whatever else something that it will just go away.
Do you honestly think that whether or not Nazi memorabilia is for sale on Yahoo will affect in any way the number of Nazi sympathizers and imitators in Europe or anywhere else? Do you think that a budding neo-Nazi recruit in France is going to change his beliefs solely on the fact that he cannot order an authentic artifact or two?
Yes, the Nazis were responsible for many atrocities in the past. But PRETENDING THINGS DON'T EXIST DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY. In fact, all too often it increases the mystique as perceived by the minds of those who are already easily lead into such things.
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
Absolutely... It is legitimate for the French to have their own laws about what freedom of speech covers in their country, and while I may not agree with it, I understand and respect it. (My family was slaughtered in WWII, so let's not say here that I agree with Nazis... I just feel it is less dangerous to let them air their views openly and in-front of equally legal public criticism
... tags so that no Frenchman will ever accidentally see anything about Nazis... If that's their desire...
than to encourage them to hide in back rooms in self-righetous indignation...)
However, it certainly should be up to French sites to block such auctions. It was correct of them to remove the items from www.yahoo.fr in order to meet local standards and continue business in France, but Yahoo! should not be obligated to pay to protect the French from access to their US site. However...
Jurisdiction issues ecome blurry on the Internet. Unless Yahoo! blocks all French sites from www.yahoo.com, then it really is NOT just a US site... So maybe they SHOULD block the French sites, and it gets more complicated if you figure in that French people could get access through non-French sites... You begin to see why governments fear the Internet as a potential threat to their soverignty...
What would be prudent of Yahoo!, though, would be to put a tag in those auctions that the French sites could read and block. At least, then, they can be seen as cooperative and giving the French the opportunity to enforce their national laws.
And as for the French government, they should subsidize the standardization of an XML DTD that allows sites to be marked with
However, expect issues like this to increase as governments figure out how to enforce their national laws overlaid with a truly international communications medium...
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
Oh... there's probably some countries that won't let the US forget this for the coming 50 years. especially with the eternal 'look who came to the rescue in WW2' attitude coming from a lot of them..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
French nationalism is dangerous. Language laws and culture laws abound, but in the end, they do support a liberal democracy and it is their misguided concept of prohibiting nazi symbology from reaching the masses that leads them to these mistakes. Hatred isn't a symbol, it is a cultural value. Destroy the symbol, the hatred remains. To destroy hatred, you must wither the root. The Nazi paraphenalia being auctioned is but a side-effect of the hatred.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Of course, the difference there was that they were American companies who were not allowed, by American law, to export outside the US.
It would be interesting if the US had taken the French perspective and demanded that all foreign countries block any American site that attempted to export US Crypto software.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Okay, so who's rule of law shall govern the Intnernet?
This is not about France telling Yahoo what to do! This is about every country that has different laws and different standards on the books. Some places it's legal to buy drugs, in other countries you might get the death sentence; which country's laws prevail when the world is your market place?
How do you keep everything in perpective?
This has been hashed out a few times here and in other places; Does anyone have a link to what was said then?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
if you're going to put the word in bold capitals, you might want to have the correct word in place.
THERE should be THEIR
there refers to location.
their refers to possession.
Oh, so these examples are "demonstrations" of political backwardness? Could you please elaborate on that? Cause, quite frankly, you haven't demonstrated anything. What is the problem with the fall of the 4th republic? What is specific in the '68 crisis as compared to what happened in the US in the same time? What is "backward" in the French revolution, and what followed (did you notice that most of your examples are 100 or 200 years old)? Where is the "backwardness" in the fact that a defeated country could not avoid having a puppet government at his head in WWII?
Now, seriously, what was this enumeration for? To show that you've opened a book? To avoid making a similar enumeration on the US? May I suggest that you study the political rhetorics in America, as compared to European (French included) counterparts? Did you notice at what insane level of populism the Presidential campaign was? And the children this and and that, and let me bestially kiss my wife while cameras are watching, and I trust the people while he's for big government, and I want to restore dignity, and I'm gonna fight for you, and , blablabla... Also, what about the incredibly stupid things that you can hear from Congressmen on C-Span when the cameras are here?
No wonder there is no strong far right party (actually, there is, it's about one half of the Republican party...), as there was in France with the National Front. In the US, pure populism is the mainstream.
Let me start by pointing out that your scheme for prventing French IP addresses from veiwing NAZI Auctions is totally unworkable. Have you heard the term "Proxy server". They allow people to effectivly make their IP address the same as that of the server. Their are public ones all over the world. You log onto the proxy server and ssuddly your computer is coming to Yahoo from the US or Japan or anywhere else that a public Proxy is available (Non public proxies are alos available. Basically any fool with a static IP and a little knowledge can set one up.) As to your rather degradational comments about the US, responding to a hot head by acting hot headed simply does not raise anyone's opinion of you. Are there contradictory laws in the US? Certainly. The drinking age is very silly, when compared with the age of majority. Censorship in some areas is worse here than in Europe. US policy's attitudes regaurding sex and nudity are very silly. I tend to argue just as strongly against the forms of cencorship practiced here as I do against those practiced elsewhere. The purpose of historic doccumation and relics is to remind us of the past. Both the good and bad aspects of it. It pisses you off to NAZI menorabilia and NAZI groups marching through the street? Good. That means you haven't forgotten. You will remember the next time someone tries to take similar power. Your family was hurt by the NAZI's and they (and you) reminded of that fact when you see some dick in a brown uniform marching around. Will they let that dick hurt them like the last one did? Hopefully not. All censorship accomplishes is to put the dick behinf closed doors where everybody forget about him. That is where he is really dangerous. As to the War in the Pacific being "Purely US interest based". I must assume that you have forgotten about the Dutch East Indies (Holland), Austrailia and India (England), South East Asia (Umm, well sorry, but your very own France), plus China (Self goverened but in the interests of most of Europe and the US). There is not a major country on Earth that has not caused incredibe amounts of suffering in the world at some point in history. France too fought her share of near genocidal colonial wars. What we should be working on is not censoring pieces of history, but making DAMN sure that EVERYBODY remembers the parts that suck the absolute most, so we can have a hope of avioding them in the future. As to beating the shit out of the first Klansman or NAZI you see, what have you proved? You now know without a shadow of a doubt that you are like them.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
So, just let them figure out HOW to do it, both legally AND technically... Why should Yahoo bother? French law doesn't extend past the borders of France anymore than american laws don't extend past the USA's borders...
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
What he's banning is something he considers offensive. Is that right? Not in my opinion. But as a German I honestly think that Nazi memorabilia is more offensive then naked humans.
I still wouldn't want to have it banned, but I can sympathize.
If only censorship filters worked, we could filter out the French.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Typical French government action. They believe by censoring everything related to the Nazis, maybe people won't realize how cozy the French Government was with the Germans.
A good friend of mine owns a Nazi dagger. He is certainly no Nazi. He also owns a British commando knife and several other pieces of WWII equipment. He is a history buff and nothing more.
From a technical standpoint. It may be possible to block sites coming directly from French domains, but it is impossible to block anyone who truely wishes to get through. I can think of several ways off the top of my head (e.g. use an anonymous browser site).
-- Will program for bandwidth
Because most of them were/are complete idiots.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that most people in my country are complete idiots too. maybe it's just something with the human race in general.
But at least we kicked some Nazi ass instead of taking it in the rear and then trying to ban free speech later in hope people would forget the Nazis existed or something.
and in case you are wondering, yes this rant was brought to you by monday.
this kind of bullshit has been going on since the beginning of time. German/French relations have always been at ods and this is just the French getting back at it one more time. Get over it guys. WWI and WWII is long over. The problems of the past are done w/. Mend old ties! DO NOT take this crap out onto the Internet, it isn't worth it, really.
The Internet is a place of free-trade and free-expression of ideas, not a battle ground over land expansion 50 - 75 years ago...
they're still amateurs compared to the austrailian parliment though
I'm told in some parts of the world it is illegal to even mention the hollocust ... does anyone know if this is true?
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
I hearby invoke Godwin's law and demand that that Slashdot immediately cease all postings related to France, Nazi's and little talking furry toys.
Burn Hollywood Burn
hmmm... except (as someone else pointed out) the French are clicking their way into Yahoo! and coming across these scary images from which they want protection. Not like they are being bombarded with them in some public place like a railway station. Kinda like sending for a mail-order catalog (from overseas) and then complaining that some of the pages have offensive pictures/words on them that are not allowed in the country in which you live.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
This kind of stuff annoys the hell out of me.
Which stuff annoys the hell out of you? The nazi stuff or the censorship stuff?
_______
2B1ASK1
Just because people in the US and Canada don't have many laws like this doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for other countries. Lets have a little respect, ok people? However, the problem again comes down to how a country can both accept the Internet and apply their current laws.
...
Canada, for example, has very strict laws about child pornography (which are being debated right now in our Supreme Court). How do we then handle the issue of child pornography coming into the country from other countries where it is not illegal? This is perhaps a more interesting version of the question this legal argument is trying to propose
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
~moofbong
~moofbong
If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro', what is the opposite of 'progress'?
...I'd be sitting at the console right now typing something like "route add france bitbucket metric 0"
--
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
Can I post the picture of your mom having sex with hitler that I made in photoshop, or is regulation only of things that offend *other* people ridiculous socialism?
Go for it. I'd consider that to be freedom of expression. Have a party.
At the same time, however, recognize that I'll post that picture I have of you banging a sheep.
Socialism is evil, like communism, it doesn't work. France is a socialist country. And *I* live in a socialist country.
If you want to be taxed all to hell to pay for silly protectionist policies and the stupidity of the proles, that's fine with me: just leave me the hell out of it.
I prefer a capitalism, which rewards those who work hard, and punishes laziness.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Before French citizens can access anything on the internet, they must first be licensed by their government and then the site they are going to visit must also approve of a French visitor coming to see the site's content.
I truly understand the very logical reasoning behind France's objection to auctioning off Hate paraphenalia, but I feel a bit more secure knowing it is occuring in the open where this behavior can be noted and used as an example than hidden. Because you know that moment it is outlawed at least three sites will pop up (members.tripod.com/naziauction) to fill the demand. What's worse is these sites will operate without the watchful eye of ADL or other HateWatch groups.
Welcome to the global economy France. You either play along or become extinct.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Obviously, this is not the case, as I access both child pornography and snuff films on the 'net on a regular basis. Plllt.
--
Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
y'know, now that I think of that, this might not be a bad idea at all. Imagine the headlines:
I swear, this is ripe for something on the Onion, if anything was..
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem"
(as seen on a bulletin board in Fermi lab)
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Bull. The French are obsessed with the past when it comes to the collaboration. Most of our historians, philosophers, intellectuals and even politicians are spending much of their energy on this issue to understand and study accurately what happened. Many powerful Frenchmen are now in jail for having been collaborators. This is a permanent debate on the French intellectual scene. So, no, we're not trying to escape what happened, not at all. And your own vision of the resistance and the collaboration also seems to be slightly biased, isn't it?
As far as the Vichy government is concerned, it was nothing but a puppet government, chosen by the nazis who were omnipotent in France after their victory, and serving the nazi's interests.
PS: May I suggest you to read "Trading with the Enemy", by Charles Higham? It has some interesting information on the (excellent) relations between Nazi Germany and American business. It seems that, in every country, people are tempted to collaborate with the (even temporary) winner, whoever he is...
If there's anything our good friends the French should have learned, it's that building an impenetrable defensive line is ludicrous. Why? Because you'll just have them go around your defenses through Belgium.
I don't have an answer to this question, but it seems to me that the Internet (Arpanet back when I first encountered it!) has become antigressively (as opposed to progressively) less "free" over the years.
There was a time when there were *no* rules: anyone did *anything* they wanted. Naturally, there were consequences for doing stupid things, but there wasn't any legal involvement: the system took care of its own.
These days, it's not that way at all.
So what's going to happen?
Is the Internet going to become controlled and regulated by the Legal System?
Is it going to become controlled and regulated by Big Business?
Is there any difference between the two?
Will a secretive undernet develop, once again allowing no-holds-barred information exchange?
Will we savvy geeks rise up against the burgeoning restrictions, or will be lie back and take it up our collective brown buttons?
Frankly, I think the worst will happen: this remarkable opportunity for freedom of information sharing will be subverted to the needs of business. Most of the public doesn't know what it's losing, and the rest of the public is dominated by selfish short-term interests that simply aren't compatible with long-term societal gains.
It's the End of the Internet as we know it... and it's going out not with a bang, but a whimper.
:-(
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
France should simply require their providers there to filter out connections to ebay. Why is it ebay's problem if France has some silly laws allowing censorship? Are they a French company? :P
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Not necessary. You can use a non-French proxy if you have accesss to one, or you could even get an account at Anonymizer for $15 per quarter. (Anonymizer even lets you surf for free if you feel like putting up with the delay). This ruling isn't going to prevent anyone who seriously wants access to this material from seeing it. What's most perturbing is that a judge felt he had the ability/authority/right to do so.
The other question is if Yahoo knows what they are sending at all. They should have their auctions catagorized and therfore know.
The best they can be expected to do is to not knowingly transmit this memorabilia to France. To not even try would be rude. To err, would only be common carrier.
If the French have a problem with their laws, they should change them or leave. This kind of suppression only glamorizes that crap and makes it seem more valuable, but that's not my bussiness. Now if someone wants to limit what I see and hear, they can go to hell.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Go boil your bottom, you stupid son of a silly person! I fart in your general direction! I empty my nostrils on your aunties! Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries! Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second tim'e!
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
An addition to your comments, _xeno_ ...
Firstly, we're not talking about blocking the -sale- of these items, we're talking about the ability to view them. Blocking the sale of items is considerably easier, because mechanisms for that sort of thing already exist. It's probably already being taken care of and is by no means Yahoo!'s problem.
Next, Yahoo! isn't selling anything here, they're providing a service. You already knew that, but I just wanted to point it out. Yahoo! isn't selling Nazi artifacts.
This ruling pisses Americans off (generally) for various reasons, but I only want to discuss two of them here.
"Business Imposition"
Now, the traditional problem with a ruling like this has been "it can't be done." "It can't be done" in the Internet industry directly translates into "it hasn't been done, it will cost a lot of manhours to research and develop a way to do it, and we don't want to spend that money."
France is replying to this claim (which Yahoo! made way back when the ruling was first passed down) by saying "too bad. Do it or else." Yahoo!, an American corporation, isn't going to take lightly to a foriegn country's government imposing regulations that they ordinarily wouldn't have to deal with.
Don't be surprised if this becomes yet another of the long strain of drawn-out legal battles over the Law of the Non-Land. Don't be surprised if it gets delegated to the WTO or some other non-aligned organization. Don't be surprised if the final ruling is a least-common-denominator solution - web content must be acceptible to the law of any area from which it is accessible.
"Cultural Imposition"
This goes both ways. France claims we're imposing on their culture by providing their citizens a way to break the law. Most of the Americans in this discussion contend that Yahoo! is following every law that applies to them, and France is applying legal rulings where they have no jurisdiction. Who bends?
The Solution
Technically speaking, the most sensible configuration for blocking these "illegal" internet requests to pages containing material pertaining to Nazi artifacts, is for the blocking mechanism to be a part of Yahoo!'s network. The reasons for this are obvious.
In terms of financial requirements and responsibility, however, it makes more sense for the French government or related organizations to develop the technology required to perform the block. They are the ones who WANT this imposition to happen, so they should impose it themselves. In turn, Yahoo! should, as a responsible and respectful member of the global community, agree to put these blocks in place and allow the French to maintain and administer them.
Finally
We're not trying to piss anybody off. America's culture may be younger and far more promiscuous, but it is -our culture.- We have the right to broadcast whatever our law permits us to, under our regulations. No foriegn government has any say in the way that right is interpreted. The French, on the other hand, are responsible for enforcing their own laws.
If the pissing contests can be abandoned, Yahoo! and the French government, and any other parties with vested interest, can solve this problem together, since it is obviously a matter that needs a solution. If not, well, let the flaming commence!
I think you got a few things wrong:
America restricts the rights to see nudity and drink alchol from all minors.
And all majors as well, to a degree. Can you see people having sex at 3:00 PM on any public station anywhere in the USA? Can you buy beer on Sunday in Georgia?
Once you're of age, have at it! Download
porn off the internet, get those smutty DVDs, watch Pay-Per-View sex show.
Except that lawmakers have traditionally tried to heavily regulate that as well. There are still laws on the books regulating how, with whom, and with what devices you are allowed to have sex.
The official reason that TV and radio is censored is that children can view it without restriction.
But the real reason that TV and radio is censored is because people want to use the law as a club to beat up the things that they think are immoral.
So while I agree with the spirit of your post, I feel like some of the details are not quite correct. America is still very backward when it comes to sex. Spend a few weeks (or hell, even a few days) in Amsterdam and you'll see what I mean.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Now then, as for the charge that this has a tremendous impact on American cinema, I don't really think that's as accurate as you think. Often times, studios intentionally throw in unbelievably bloody scenes in order to allow the stuff they actually want shown to slip by. Much of the "censoring" is actually by design. I agree, it's stupid, and it is an abridgment of rights, and I think the current Supreme court probably would have struck it down if they'd been the ones to decide it, but they don't feel like overturning an established precident. It sucks, but I still prefer economic disincentives to creating "obscene" movies to an outright ban on viewing certain things. Or for that matter, a national committe which sets the standards for my language (newspeak is doubleplus good!)
As for the topless bit, now you're just being silly. I can see your point on the movies, but countries are allowed to set their own standards of decency. The fact that we consider toplessness similar to bottomlessness is just what we're used to. Now, I'm a libertarian, I believe that people ought to be able to wear as little as they like (and the rest of us have an equal right to shout lewd comments :), but assuming that a country is going to pass laws concerning indecent exposure, the fact that our laws include tops and yours don't hardly makes us less free.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Furthermore, what if we told you that your laws are in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? Would you feel in any way compelled to change them?
We thought not. Point proven.
I can see the fnords!
The real "culprit" is the French ISPs, or anyone who allows French citizens to access this illegal data. How can the American company Yahoo be blamed, or even its French presence, (yahoo.fr) which has already removed the auctions?
The government should prohibit ISPs from displaying this data, if it wants to censor anything. And then make it illegal for French citizens to connect to foreign ISPs.
When someone reads this post they must remember that the holocaust, and the legacy left by World War II and Nazism has left a very different mark in the history books than it has here in America. Which would have an influence on decisions such as there. I'm not supporting or advocating this ruling, but I'm saying that people need to understand cultural context when criticizing other nations and their policies.
France has full right to pass laws against its citizens from trafficking in Hate symbols. But in trying to enforce them on a global scale, France has fallen into a myopic point-of-view that by tweaking a parameter, its citizens will magically be spared the hate symbols on the internet.
Fascism is on the rise in Europe. Yahoo auctions aren't going to impede or help at all. Anti-Hate legislation in these countries will.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
> Well, you said it. You prefer being irrational.
Oh, really? Interesting. Well, it seems that I have to be a little more explicit so that everybody can get it:
I'd rather live in a country which is irrational about nazism than in a country which is irrational about sex, alcohol, and stuff. Is it clearer now?
Last, no, I DO NOT support this ruling (even though, deep inside, I wonder why the hell is Yahoo selling such crap), as I thought I had made it clear before. I'm only reminding a few Americans out there, who have immediately jumped on te bash-the-froggs bandwagon as soon as this story appeared, that they have similar problems with much more far-reaching consequences (banning nudity/explicit language/etc., for example, on THE mass-medium, aka TV, has a somehow greater impact than banning nazis-related items auctions on a website...).
For that reason, despite the nausea I feel every time I see a swastika, I think it is valuable to have tangible reminders of the history we do not want to be doomed to repeat. On the other hand, having lived in France as well, I don't think that that is a problem facing most French adults.
But what about the children? Won't somebody please think of the children?
Seriously, the younger generation coming up who by now do not have parents who lived through that era are the ones who need to be shown the history. They need to have tangible evidence of where bigotry can lead.
It's for the same reason I oppose hate crime/hate speech laws - In addition to the loaded first ammendment issues and the setting of subjecting precedents. It's better to know what's out there than to be ignorant of the violent aspects of society.
When Nazi paraphenalia is outlawed, only outlaws will have Nazi paraphenalia.
__________________________________________________
To Keep French Out, Yahoo Creates "Fine British Wines" Category
Paris, France (SatireWire.com) -- To comply with French law and keep French Web surfers from attempting to view Nazi memorabilia on its auction site, Yahoo today said it will move Nazi artifacts from their current category -- Antiques > Militaria > WWII -- to a listing under Home > Food > Fine British Wines.
The announcement came only hours after a French court ruled the Santa Clara, Cal.-based company was in violation of France's anti-racism laws, which it make it illegal to sell or display anything that incites racism. French culture minister Catherine Tasca accepted Yahoo's proposal, noting that "No self-respecting French person would dignify such a category by clicking on it." However, she added, identifying British wines as "fine" was "unnecessarily vulgar."
Hammer of Truth
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
Right. In my state, it's illegal to do anything other than missionary position for the purpose of procreation. Which is why I think organizations like BR are so damn cool, providing the illusion of sexual freedom for one weekend a year. *sigh*
/."
"I'm not a bitch, I just play one on
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Trying to force Yahoo! to comply to their local laws seems equally as dumb as the whole iCraveTV fiasco (as iCraveTV, based in Canada, were complying to the Canadian telecommunication laws by rebrodcasting television caught with an antenna). The US is free to set up a nationwide firewall, also.
Gack! I hate people !!
-legolas
i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
Those who do not remember history are forced to repeat it.
Allow the selling of Nazi memerobilia(sp?), but make sure that it is sold with the correct connotations. "This Nazi dinnerware was from the personal collection of the man who mercilessly slaughtered over 7,000 jewish women and children. He was later executed for his war crimes." Does anyone see a problem with that?
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
So I guess you're not a mime type?
:-)
Mike
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
This is just more of the arrogant French attitude that says that the world revolves around them.
This isn't the only case of this, either. The French forced all Airport networking products (from Apple Computer) to run on a totally different frequency than any of the other Airport products sold around the world. Why? Because it just so happens that the French military uses the same spectrum for their radio communications. They said that it could "interfere" with communications. Why the French military runs on this frequency is beyond me, as no one else in the world needs different Airport networking equipment, only the French. Just ludicrous.
I wouldn't be too surprised if a French judge decided to rule that the sky is green, or 1+1 equals 3, or war is peace. They can say it all they want, but that won't make it happen.
(end rant)
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
I don't remember the Japanese armies parading on Manhattan's 5th avenue while you're looking them from your window hearing your wife or your mother crying, slaughtering entire villages in Texas because they had heard there were resistants around and coudn't find them even after torturing most males, nor enforcing an important part of the American population to work for their own plants, nor stealing most of the wealth and agricultural production, nor putting a puppet government in Denver trying to implement a system copy/pasted from the Japanese one. All this during 4 years. I actually don't remember seeing the Japanese armies on the American soil...
In other words: for the French, the nazi era has nothing to do with other wars in which we've been involved.
Oh...I know -- let's ignore the past. That will make everything much better.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
The french judge then went on to demand that yahoo build a device called the Maginot Firewall to filter out all offending users. The Firewall is very difficult to circumvent directly, but incredibly easy to circumvent via ISPs in Belgium and the Netherlands.
So far I've gotten all my Karma from telling people they are wrong... :)
More importantly the French want these auctions banned, yet history shows that the French were colaborators with the Nazis, something that they try to forget in a swirl of how magnificent the French Resistance were. Of course the Resistance was a tiny proportion of the population and only really started to become a force when the British started dropping SOE (Special Operatios Executive) agents into occupied territory to arm and train them. The French forget how culpable they were, its like a whole country has amnesia, and so people who were part of the Vichy government in France during the war went unpunished as did many ordinary colaborators. This judge in France just wants to keep anything that might remind them of their own guilt out of reach, its too uncomforatable for the French to face up to the truth. PS this is not supposed to be flaimbait, its supposed to be informative.
The first link is to an article about about the Germans trying to get US isps to refuse to host any nazi material. France kind of seems reasonable in comparision.
http://www.cnn.com/ 200 0/TECH/computing/08/29/hate.sites.idg/
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/06/germany .neonazi.ap/
http://w ww. cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/12/germany.extremism/ index.html
We're not broadcasting Nazi icons on French TV.
And we are not going after French websites that make it possible for Americans to view auctions of pornographic items. We are not going after any websites that make it possible for Americans to view auctions of pornographic items. We are not going after any websites that distribute pornography. We are not (with localized exceptions) going after video rental places, bookstores, and newsstands that deliver pornography. We are not (with localized exceptions) going after clubs with nude entertainment.
When French "irrationality" about the Nazis is low enough that one can buy a book named "Nazis" full of pictures of Nazi memorabilia in a mainstream bookstore, your "irrationality" will be of the same minor quirk level as American "puritanism". In the meantime, I'll enjoy Madonna's "Sex".
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
How can these be the same people who fashioned that proud lady in New York's harbor?
Have they learned nothing? The most powerful weapons the Nazi's possessed were not fashioned of steel and gunpowder, but crafted of words. Words that carefully rewrote history in the minds of their people. They so realized the power of this weapon that they quickly moved against those who offered words of truth or opposition.
The French are starting down a dangerous path that may leave their view of history distorted and risk having their children relive the tragedies and evils of the past.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
> your lambasting CmdrTaco for saying this stuff annoys him, is unwarranted
Why? He's trotting out the easy line that all censorship is bad and evil. It takes more thought to consider whether something is justifiable.
>France has full right to pass laws against its citizens from trafficking in Hate symbols. But in trying to enforce them on a global scale, France has fallen into a myopic point-of-view that by tweaking a parameter, its citizens will magically be spared the hate symbols on the internet.
Are you saying that countries have no right to control the use of internet in their country? That because you have had the de facto right to post illegal or defamatory material on the internet one should always have that right?
The internet *needs* to be controlled - and just because you've [speaking in the generic - no malfeasance is imputed on you] been able to steal software, to copy mp3s and to distribute illegal material, and, understandably you enjoy this freedom, that's no reason why this should continue.
No one would suggest that newspapers should have the right to publish child pornography; many would not disagree with the restriction of the iconography of a regime associated with the slaughter of millions; and therefore the internet must not be any different - to suggest otherwise would mean the disintegration of the rule of law.
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
This is, alas, the usual response to this sort of cruft. Don't go after the problem, go after someone/something else...
It is not a question about the evil of the items sold, they, and the people who buys them, are indeed evil. But that is not the question. The question is whetever it is practical and ethical, to, in order to stop this auctions, have the american website ban french IPs, or have staff enought to censor the auctions. It will probably NOT decrease the number of nazi-items sold - nazis are not stup, just evil, they'l find a way around, while normal french sitizens who wants to buy other things from the US, will not be able to do so through the american website.
This is a question whetever the common carrier, or the individuals using it, are accountable for illegal acts performed by the individuals.
I opt for the individuals.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Thats the 20,000franc fine in US Dollars. I don't know about france but in the US disputes of that magnitude are usually settled in small claims court without a lawyer because legal fees almost would certainly exceed the amount of the claim.
If Yahoo cared enough about the matter to go to court over (instead of settling) I can't see how the threat of any judgement less than say $10M is going to change their actions.
Ahah, funny. If you had staid a little bit longer, you would have seen that this whole story was a fake that was organized by the directors of those night-clubs, and it turned out later:
1- Many non-gays club has been checked.
2- Non-gay clubs were among the ones to be closed.
3- Most importantly, the gay clubs in Paris are more flourishing than ever.
Now, wanna talk abour Giuliani's policy in New York?
Didn't Germany want Compuserve to ban some stuff several years ago? My memory's a bit foggy...
Sorry, I meant "American ground", not "American soil".
This position is anathema to the traditional american concept of free speech.
My country has extensive hate crime legislation that is, in my opinion, overbroad. Not because I disagree with the concept of hate crimes as harassment, but because such legislation is often used in cases like this one, where the alleged hate crime is only tangentially related to the feelings of anyone involved.
How is the viewing of information about goods once owned by the nazis a hate crime? How is buying such an item a hate crime? (Obviously selling it or listing it can't be a hate crime, because the perpetrator would be outside of France's jurisdiction).
Was the movie American Beauty banned in France?
NB: This is about Yahoo, not ebay. Read the damned(heh) article.
...hearing that Yahoo! was prepared to fight "any legal attack issued" by the French courts, France immediately surrendered to Yahoo! and invited shareholders to establish a secondary government in Vichy.
I've got it! It's all so simple!
We're going about this ALL wrong!
We simply need to have yahoo put a big button up on it's site to get in, asking: "Are you french?" (Yes/No). If they answer No, then everything is fine. If they answer yes, then it takes them to pokemon.com or something.
But wait, it gets better.
Under the DMCA, they could claim that this is an access control measure! And since american corperations have already demonstrated their willingness and ability to go after people in foreign countries, any evil French 1337 h4x0rz who got around the protection and offended themselves by accident could be hanged by the Yahoo mafia, as an example to others!
And if anyone in france complained, we could just say something witty like "if you expect us to adhere to your ridiculous laws, then you have to adhere to ours. And ours are riduclouser."
That's it, rather than fight all these annoying, yet legally powerful examples of absurdity in action, we should just get them to fight each other! I imagine that it wouldn't take more than a few hangings for french judges to get the point...
"Feu!!!"
"MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooo...."
"Zat will teach those stupide américains some manneurs!"
* Mad Cow (disease)
---
Inanimate Carbon Rod thanks you for your support. See you in 2004!
Wow, that post looks awfully familiar.
:)
I wonder where I've seen it before.
Give me a minute... I know this one...
Also, I feel it is my duty to note that LittleNicky is an impostor: the real Anne Marie has UID #239347.
Will the real Bruce Perens Please Stand Up
The net will always be a haven where this information will be available. If you don't like it don't surf it out. If you feel so passionately about it then hunt it down and come to the realization that you will only succeed in making it move somewhere else. It won't go away. (Sad but True) Yeah, the people who are into the nazi stuff are ignorant or possibly hate mongers. I can't say any different about those who have gone to the extremes that others have gone to to hunt them down or remove any information of thier existense from history. Will we always be in a situation where one side is more correct for thier vendetta than the other? Does the eradication of this memorabilia change what happenned? No. So as all of these items being of historical value should be gone? No. Hundreds of years from now they will only be of more value whether its Nazi SS pins, letters, Enigma machines, Tattoo skin lamps or the horrific daugerotypes of the genocide occuring at Aushwitz. Then what will France really have accomplished by censoring them from your fellow citizens? Nothing. Oooo some are offended that this is for sale... Stopping thier sale will not change history. Eradication of information/items will not do that either. If anything by doing so you are setting yourselves up for it to happen all over again.Before you flame me. I am not a Nazi sympathiser or anything like that. I don't hate the french either. I know history will always be written by the 'victors'. It has happenned that way before and will only continue to be that way. Pick up any history book and see for yourself. Personally, I think it should be easy enough for Yahoo to filter out IP ranges from France in some way so that the 'objectionable' material will not display. That would/should be the end of the story. Maybe if france continues to be such a pain in the ass then it will censor itself from the internet and we will not miss it.As for the US being hypocritical...well... I may agree with you on some (not all) of your points but please be sure to point that fine microscope of observation back at yourself and all the wonderful hypocritical things France has done before you scream hypocrit at us. The freedoms we enjoy versus the 'freedoms' you have in your socialist regime are wonderful things that you will never be able to fully appreciate.
Prospecting Stinks. Stop Wasting Time on Cold Calling.
On the other. . .
Not only is the French law stupid and unenforcable, ( when such laws exist the people ALWAYS simply create a black market following free trade principles, they did this even in the USSR), BUT. . .
I am a Jew. Much of my family died in WWII. I know people with tattoos. None in my family though, my family wasn't quite so lucky. My family was not only killed, but their villages were destroyed and * all records that they had even existed were exunged from maps and public records.* I myself only exist because a few members had managed to emigrate between the wars. This was not easy for them, they were slaves. They were white, European, living in the 20th century, and slaves. They went from being slaves of the Czar to being slaves of the politburo.
All of this is just to lay some background for my opinion on the matter at hand.
The ONLY way to fight the rise facism and nazism in the future is to remember.
* Those who forget the past are condemed to repeat it.*
This quote is attributed to George Santayan, but dear George only made a memerable phrase of a sentiment that goes back in the written record at LEAST as far as Sun Tzu, and Napoleon once spoke almost the exact same words.
Here's what everyone who is concerned about such matters SHOULD do. Buy a dagger. One with SS prominantly displayed on the hilt. Pay whatever you have to get it and treasure it.
Now, take that dagger and stab it as hard as you can into your desktop, or your mantlepiece or perhaps your doorframe, someplace where you have to see it many times a day.
Everytime you look at it, stop. . . and make the mental climb up to the top of Masada and repeat to yourself:
"Never again, never again, never again."
THAT is the way to deal with the legacy of Nazism.
Hide your head in the historical sand and someday you'll wake up to find a bayonet stuck in your butt because you never saw it coming.
If they don't want Nazi memorabilia as part of their culture, then so be it.
That would be fine, except they are asking an American company to control the behavior of their own citizens. Yahoo is not forcing themselves onto their computers, the citizens are choosing to go there.
If France wants to make it a crime to visit the US Yahoo, then fine, make it a crime. But it's not up to us to enforce it.
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
They can't fix it. But an impromptu petition like this is the best way to get the fuss into the news and enact some probable change.
...and then when they came for me there was nobody left but the French.
People at Yahoo are not consistent with themselves or worse they are hypocrites.
The have been condemned for incentive to racial hatred
On one hand you can read in their terms of Service : You agree to not use the Service to : a. upload, post, email, transmit or otherwise make available any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;
And on the other hand in what am I not allowed to sell you can find a whole list of stuff that is banned from listing or selling : Alcoholic beverage, Cigarettes, Used Underwear ...
Tell me what is worse selling used underwear or books like Mein Kampf or the Protocol of the Sages of Scion !?
The funniest part is that they don't accept the French ruling and jurisdiction but that you can read in What I am allowed to sell, that it is forbidden to sell Any item that is illegal to sell under any applicable law, statute, ordinance or regulation
Yahoo, get your act straight before going to court !