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.

Comments

Re:I can understand

[Vassily Overveight]

"Freedom of shopping" might be *a* right, but it's by no means a *basic* right. And even "Freedom of speech" can
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.

Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!)

[kalifa]

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.

Re:Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!)

[_xeno_]

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.

I'm sorry, I just can't agree. First of all, you can't really compare the two restrictions of rights - America restricts the rights to see nudity and drink alchol from all minors. Once you're of age, have at it! Download porn off the internet, get those smutty DVDs, watch Pay-Per-View sex show. Have a beer and watch a porno - go ahead. You can do that. The reason that the definition of porn is so broad so that even artistic nudity is considered pornographic (or is it? There is a nice "old world" map at my former highschool that definately has a prominant naked women in it) is that the most vocal against porn are just that crazy. And most people don't want to come out in favor of porn. ("See, he thinks that a women's naked brest is OK for our children to see! He supports pornography!" instead of "he supports basic rights to freedom of speach." It's easy to take more rational thinking about what is pornography out of context so it becomes political suicide to go for laxing restrictions.)

The official reason that TV and radio is censored is that children can view it without restriction. (That's where all this internet filtering fun comes from too.) Many people feel that we should "protect" the "impressionable youth" (and then bitch about the apathy of said youth later - hmmm... let's think a bit...).

Blocking out Nazi artifacts (that's really what they are - historical artifacts) to all people is just stupid. I could see an argument against letting younger children view - it mostly involves the "impressionable youth" bit again - but against anyone? It's just stupid. There's also the "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" bit. Ignoring it doesn't solve anything. I'd rather live in a nation that censors content with the intent to proect only minors so that once you're "of age" you can view without restrictions, rather than one that assumes everyone is better off without being able to see Nazi material. But to each their own - if you think being able to see nudity is more important than learning about the past, why not? It's not my place to judge. I just would rather live in America.

How can they regulate?

[moofbong]

I don't understand how the French government has any control over a website hosted on US soil. It would seem to me that, unless there is some physical presence of Yahoo in France, they can't force Yahoo to modify their content. I'm not up on my international law, but how can they force Yahoo to do anything? The United States certainly won't allow the French FBI to come over and shut Yahoo down by force, and if somebody sues Yahoo from France, how do they enforce collection?

~moofbong

Re:How can they regulate?

[Cyberdyne]

I don't understand how the French government has any control over a website hosted on US soil. It would seem to me that, unless there is some physical presence of Yahoo in France, they can't force Yahoo to modify their content. I'm not up on my international law, but how can they force Yahoo to do anything? The United States certainly won't allow the French FBI to come over and shut Yahoo down by force, and if somebody sues Yahoo from France, how do they enforce collection?

Nice theory. Unfortunately, the UK government has a fairly effective way of suppressing unwanted TV channels on satellite, known as a "proscription" order: they make it directly illegal for any company subject to UK law (any company with an office in the UK) to advertise with that channel, as well as making advertising the channel in the UK illegal, and selling access to that channel. Oh, and they make it a criminal offence to possess videotapes which haven't been censored by the British Board of Film Censorship (now renamed "Classification", but the function's the same).

In theory, Yahoo could just put two fingers up to the court. In practice, that would cost them all their revenue from any multinational advertising with them (Coca Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Mars) - European governments have become pretty good at suppressing free speech.

Re:How can they regulate?

[jcwren]

It seems to me that it ought to be a function of the model. Yahoo is not "sending" packets to France, but rather France is "requesting" packets from Yahoo.

If the French don't want the traffic, it seems it should be the responsibility of their ISPs to filter it. Otherwise, this akin to saying "We don't like Marcel Marceau, so you can't transmit any programs with him in it", rather than us just telling cable carriers that we shall carry no programming with him in it (and we shouldn't. I hate mimes.)

Once again, this simply reflects the ignorance of the law (and government officials in general) of how the internet works. Websites don't "send" traffic, people request it. Solve the problem in your own country, not someone elses.

And while I'm certainly no fan of Nazi war memorabilia (I do want an Enigma machine, tho. Anyone got one for sale?), who is the government to tell their people what they can and cannot own? That's just censorship and oppression. And perhaps a violation of human rights. If YOU don't like war memorabilia, then how about YOU don't buy any? Don't inflict your viewpoints/religion/etc on me. Live it for yourself.

--jcwren

Sorry but it won't work.

[drsoran]

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.

French Judge to Yahoo:

[Lord Ender]

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!

Not quite

[Loundry]

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.

Many things happened since this old decision

[Mop]

This decision is now quite old (May 2000), and has already been discussed a few times here on Slashdot. The new things (but already a few weeks old) about this story are:

• After 2 months, yahoo said it could not guess the origin of all IP addresses
• The judge asked a expert panel (including Vint Cerf) to find what were the technical solutions available
• The conclusions from this panel were that the best solution was to filter out .fr ISP (about 60% of french connections), ask the user about his natinality for the other ISPs, and filter him based on what he said. If this is to be considered by the judge as the best attempt to follow this french law, the story could very well end here.

isn't it funny...

[GeneralEmergency]

&nbsp

...how the French feel compelled to silence history by sacrificing liberty?

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." --

In a related story...

[mrbuckles]

...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.

Woah! Wait a min!

[Mathonwy]

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...

On the one hand you are correct.

[kfg]

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.