Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Knuckles Under
ewhac
was one of several to inform us that Yahoo has knuckled under. Their auction site
will now start using "computer software," which as we all know is infallible, to roboban auctions of Nazi and Klan items (see
SFGate's story
or
CNN's story).
France wanted its countrymen kept away from these items, and since
Yahoo couldn't block the French, they blocked the stuff.
Cigarettes, switchblades and used underwear are also forbidden, but
it seems only the hateful stuff gets autoblocked.
"Photons have neither morality nor visas"
my ass. Just wait until every one of the planet's sovereignties
gets a proscripted category of its own -- will I be able to sell
paintings
by John Wayne Gacy?
Wounded Knee
medals?
Confederate flags?
The world's full of offensive knickknacks, Yahoo, have fun banning it all.
The actual terms of service forbid: "any item which, in Yahoo!'s sole discretion, is inflammatory, offensive, unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortious, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, hateful, racially or ethnically objectionable, or otherwise inconsistent with the spirit of Yahoo! Auctions." It's the robo-enforcement that's new.
Of course they will. Its easyer than blocking some IP's. Next thing you know we wont be able to go on the net because it's against someones Laws. Hope you didn't expect any better.
snowulf.com
What are you on???? A. Leet' talk is stupid, B. What the hell did that have to do with today (or this moments) topic??/
Coward.
snowulf.com
No one is having their rights violated here. No one has a right to list items on Yahoos auctions and Yahoo is well within their rights to prohibit or allow whatever they want. Quite correctly, Yahoo doesn't want to be seen as profiting from the sales of such items.
The market will surely react and people will find other outlets for this sort of thing (with or without the French), but good for Yahoo for taking a positive step.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I don't understand why yahoo should have to buckle to this pressure. Why is it up to them to enforce another country's laws? If France wants to deny their citizens access to information and materials, I hardly see how it is yahoo's responsibility to enforce this. If they really want it blocked, they should force isps to block the site as a rule, not force a foriegn company to change the way they do business just because you dont want your citizen's to be able to buy a german ww2 bayonet or something like that. Please give me a break.
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
Rumour around the watering hole was that Yahoo! was being fined $16,000 a day. Well, if that were the case, I would have (resources permitting) cut a check for $17,520,000 and sent it to the French government and said "See us in 3 years."
Oh well. Clearly not enough chutzpah going around these days.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
I am still wondering how France can bring action against a company in California, what prevented yahoo from just ignoring France..what would have been the repercussions? Also, can they bring similar action against anyone who sells this stuff on the internet or by telephone?
This is a very slippery slope and I'm not sure it's for the better that we all go down this road... So now that France has set a precedent, which country's next? And what "moral" concept is next? Which website is next to be taken down? If France doesn't like Yahoo's auctions they should just make their ISPs ban those listings instead.
I just cant agree with this attitude.
A. what business do the french, or any other government have telling foreign businesses how to run things?
B. why is it yahoo's responsibility to enforce the rules of the French government? shouldnt the govt be talking to isps in *their* country about this, rather than a business outside their country?
C. what happens when the next country in line doesnt like something on yahoo auctions? take it off too, and then the next, and the next...?
this isnt good for yahoo, and it isnt a good step for a business to take on the internet. Let other countries enforce their own rules with their own money....
Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
Censorship is bad, don't take me wrong, but free speech is not exactly the most important basic human right out there. It needs to be balanced with others, like for instance the right to life, dammit, and that right isn't furthered by the idiots who stand at the next street corner and shout "kill the f*cking foreigners".
Sorry, but I'd rather protest restrictions like ebay's blocking of erotica. That stuff at least doesn't promote killing.
I think this is a good thing. It was a French law, and French courts have every right to try and make Yahoo comply when people from France access their service.
To me it seems the only reason Yahoo didn't comply straight away was because it seemed a bit too much like work. It's not like they don't already check where you are accessing their services from already.
A prime example are some of the "pay-for" services that go along with Yahoo Mail. I access a US server from the UK and get a message saying that for billing reasons I can't use that service. Granted, there will be a bit more coding involved, but it's not likely people from outside the jurisdiction of French law are going to be affected by this decision.
The whole "don't show Nazi paraphenalia to the people" idea is not a problem with rights "on-line" but rights "in general" and the rights of French people in particular.
my blog: good times, man, good times
You know what? I can't go to Toys R Us and buy
a copy of Debbie Does Dallas. Am I being persecuted because of this? Are my rights being violated? No. Toys R Us, has the right to decide what they sell, not the consumer. Yahoo, Amazon, your ISP, etc. are all businesses, not governments. They don't have to respect your right to buy Nazi propoganda, Confederate flags, etc. They only have to respect the market and occasionally their stock holders. When Yahoo comes knocking on doors and imprisoning people for trying to sell these things, then rights are being violated. Otherwise, just go somewhere else and purchase it. That's your right as a consumer and ultimately, Yahoo will respect those almighty dollars.
Armed with this, every censor-minded state and politico can now attack the freedom we have taken for granted on the Net. "See, if the French could do it, so can we". A sad, sad, eventuality.
Yahoo should have pulled out of France rather than submit to this.
. . . there is in some foreign country an auction site that sells cocaine, heroin, LSD and other such stuff to U.S. citizens with guaranteed anonymous delivery? How many milliseconds will this be online before the U.S. government tries to stop this? And if the government of that country refuses to take actions, how long will it be there before the CIA replaces it with a more U.S. friendly government?
Which, we all know is infalliable. Actually, I just went to the site, and it appears they've improved the code, as it no longer considers 127.0.0.1 to be Norway or something strange.
---
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
Does this mean that now we have no more Nazi memorabilia on Yahoo! that suddenly all racial hatred will cease? Somehow I don't think so.
So, if I sell a flag, that's fine. But if I sell a flag with a swastika on it, then that's not fine. What if the swastika in question is not a Nazi swastika but rather an asian good luck symbol?
Perhaps governments like the French should spend a bit more time educating their own population to tolerate their fellow humans, so that Nazi items are just historical curiosities, rather than tools of mass destruction.
I think people are spending too much time finding a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It's like saying a knife is only harmful if it has an SS logo on it.
Find funky gifts
--
Thank you for using Yahoo! auctions.
I Accept
No-one knows but those who cannot tell us.
This is quite similer to computer shops who refuse to sell anything that dosn't have Windows preinstalled.
It's perfictly legal but not perfictly ok...
I'm a little iffy on whos rights are being stepped on.. Yahoo isn't exactly changing policys and they aren't the only on-line auction site..
I set this in the catagory of unusual/strange busness demands...
Someone posted this is akin to Toys R Us refusing to carry Debby Dose Dallis.. It's not reasonable to assume Toys R Us would ever carry such an item..
Yahoo Auctions however is a general auctions site.. You should expect all kinds of general nicknack are there.. "In the spirit of Yahoo Auctions" as it were.. If Toys R Us should refuse to sell Legos or Dolls.. attach some politicly correct excuse.. that would be wrong.. Not illegal.. not really stepping on anyones rights.. but it's still wrong...
I want to really make this clear.. It's NOT A RIGHTS ISSUE.. It is a stupid busness practace.. but not much byond that...
As a rights issue you can allways go someplace else. As a busness issue it's stupid.. Your basicly trunning people away becouse some idiot MIGHT be offended...
The whole thing is silly.. You'll offend people just by being alive... Some people are offended by skin color.. There is no skin color that is immune to this.. Some people are offended by people who are pritty.. people who are ugly.. people whos chest is to big.. whos chest is to small.. Not enough mussles.. to many...
They'll be offneded by the car you drive... no matter what car you drive... and some by the fact that you drive at all.. and if you don't drive.. well people are offended by that too.
Here I use woden pencles to draw my art... and guess what... a long time ago me and some friends (artists) had a debate on that... One argued that you can't do an effective job with anything but woden pencles.. annother argued the environment.. a tree died for that pencle.. ever the antagonis I argued disposable macanical pencles.. plastic being non-bio-degradable.. It was a short lived argument..
I understand not wanting to be offensive and such but draw a line at sanity please...
It's not like selling Nazi artifacts is going to bring Hitler back... They are a reminder of the past... We need this history... or we shall be doomed to repeate it...
Like the racist artifacts from American history. People would rather have then stuffed away and let rot. But this is what we did.. and what we were. This is the propoganda of the past and it should be recorded and acnoladged for the sake of knowing better in the future...
I don't actually exist.
the fact is there is a world of difference between toys r us and ebay. you restrict porn from toys r us because it's a childrens store. you restrict porn because a rational argument can be built that children aren't ready for such things. but what of nazi paraphernalia, what are they hiding from us? an idea? an odious memory? the difference between toys r us and ebay is the difference between realizing a certain maturity is required, and saying a certain maturity isn't possible. which i'm afraid to say is bunk.
i cringe to bring up the spectre of orwell, but what else is this??
that having been said, the onus lands squarely upon the french government. if i was ebay i'd do the same damned thing. but it's the french (and the germans) who are just as ignorant as khadafy, milosevic and china when they think that state-sponsored censorship of ideas works. thank you falun gong. what's ironic is that if hitler won, isn't this precisely what he'd do? those goddamned capitalists.
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
Okay, so Yahoo (exclamation point, TM, etc.) has decided to cowtow to the Frogs on this one. That's their business. You don't have to like them for being an amoral corporate entity that made a decision based on the Almighty Buck as opposed to our inalienable right to sell whatsoever we damn please on their service, but stop harping about censorship. Either that, or come up with a good way of distinguishing between the times it's okay to say "no" and the times it's not. Harping about "censorship" and injustice every time someone says "no, you can't print that here" makes you look like a fringe loon and detracts from the important issues.
But then again, I'm talking crap, because "importance" is a culturally relative concept. Apparently in Germany it's more important to keep Nazi stuff hidden than to be allowed to talk about it, and who am I to say they're wrong about that?
See? Now I'm confused about censorship. Damn! You'd better moderate this down, or something.
AirSupply: go ahead, cut me off.
...sites that sell all kinds of drugs to American citizens, mostly prescription medications that are either too expensive in the US, or not approved by the FDA. I happen to think that's a good thing, and I'm quite saddened to see Yahoo getting pushed around by those socialist assholes in France.
What's next? Muslims shutting down sales of The Satanic Verses?
Make no mistake, this is VERY bad news.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I mean, it's allowed in Thailand so why can't we buy some good ole kiddies porn videos?
Laws are laws, it's the right for each country to choose what is right or not.
If it is legal to be a racist neo-nazi in the US, I don't see why we should tolerate this in Europe.
As well as the US don't have to accept the laws of Thaliand where a 7 year old can be sold by his familly to a whorehouse...
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
What ticks me off is their failure to distinguish between modern racial movement trinkets and the highly refined hobby of medal collecting.
The man who first introduced me to WW2 artifacts was a Jew whose father served in the US Army during WW2. His father brought home tons of German surplus items and thus my friend eventually became a dedicated collector. At one point he owned one of Hermann Goering's dress uniforms. Serious collecting requires brains and YEARS of experience! It's not exactly the kind of hobby a nuckle-dragging skinhead enjoys.
Hell, Pokemon collectors are more violent than Nazi medal collectors!Yahoo can sell whatever they want on their auction sites, they really don't owe you a thing. It's not as if you're paying for the service is it? and if you really want to get hold of nazi memorabilia, then I'm sure there's someone who will sell it to you. In case you hadn't realised you have actually got freedom of choosing where you shop as much as the shops have got the freedom of deciding what they sell.
I don't really care what Yahoo! decides to do in terms of blocking certain ads for inanimate objects. The reason for this is that I wouldn't use Yahoo! at all in the first place. Especially if I was to buy German WWII militaria.
I have a collection of German WWII militaria, among others a full uniform and a bunch of medals. These used to belong to my late Great Grandfather. He was an officer in the SS Legion Latvia on the eastern front. He got wounded at Kursk but still managed to save two of his men. He died shortly after. His wife was awarded the Ritter Kreuz, which is also in my collection. Know what? Not all Germans killed Jews. Neither did they all like Hitler. In fact, most Germans hated him.
But this collection I have, however offensive it may be to French or other people, is part of my heritage. I will pass this on to my decendants when that time comes. My Great Grandfather fought a battle, in which he died as well as many of his countrymen. Now here is for the real noodle. He wasn't German. He was Latvian. He fought for the Germans because that was the only opposition towards the Soviets who blatantly occupied his country. So there is history on both sides of the war. Stalin, who was the almighty ally of the Allies, was one of the most horrible people in the 20th century. Genocide in the form of "artificial starvations" and the like were only part of the horror that he induced. He didn't care wheather somebody was close to him or not. He killed them anyway. But we all seem to forget these things.
Why not ban American militaria from that era? I think I know why, the winner writes the book. But a great man known as General Patton was not a very nice guy either. Upon the surrender of approximately 300 German soldiers near Ville Spockers, France, he ordered his men to shoot the Germans who already had given up. Why? Because he didn't think that Germans were good enough to be taken prisoners. But then again, history is only as good as in the eye of the beholder. I think that WWII militaria should be widely traded and at the best possible way be taken care of. American, German, British, Soviet, Japanese and Italian... These tokens of history may aid in preventing future uprisings of left-/rightwing extremists. We should all remember the people that died in that war. We should learn from the atrocities of the 20th century. Not the way we punished the Germans after WWI. These "bannings" of certain objects only fuel the growth of underground organizations who will obtain these artifacts for tokenizing some kind of religion. It is unfortunate that the people out there that really do collect WWII militaria should suffer for these reasons. Once again, these people are probably more interested in the history than starting a foundation of a Vierte Reich.
However, as I started out, if I was in the market for obtaining some German militaria, I would look at http://www.german-militaria.co.uk, rather than Yahoo! auctions.
Thanks for reading and understanding that I in no way support what the holocaust or whatever other atrocities the Germans bestowed upon others, by posting this response.
Alex
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
Hooray, it's a victory for French revisionism! The French would really rather have us all forget their own little foray into Nazi collaboration since it makes it that much easier for them to try to gain whatever advantage they can over the Germans.
And don't forget, you new champions of French political enlightenment, that it was your friends in the French government that saw fit to bomb the Greenpeace ship "Rainbow Warrior" in a New Zealand harbor.
But then again this is really nothing new from the people that brought you the Comittee of Public Safety, Robespierre and Saint-Just.
The thing I find really ironic about all this that they don't seem concerned at all with people collecting "memorabilia" related to Louis XVI or Napoleon -- c'mon, didn't the French at least have a revolution to overthrow that bad Bourbon king? Or are we still embarassed enough over the Terrors to not want to make a stink over it? Kind of like the embarassment over the Vichy government.
Or maybe a nice painting made from the blood of aborted fetuses.
I sure want one of those. Make a nice addition to my coffee table. And if you're offended by this, just keep driving.
Countries are allowed to make local laws. Don't like it - then too bad. It is against the law for example to display a swastika in Germany. That's their law. Don't give me a long boring lecture on the origin of the swastika, don't tell me about the treatment of Native Americans, don't draw me a stupid analogy to something else. It's not relevant.
It's always seemed to me, with this hate item and gun and game violence that they're missing the point. Items don't cause hate, people do. It would be a far better thing to -teach people- why it's bad, what to do, so coming into contact with items are handled in a sane and civilized way. This kind of bassackwards idea that games/guns/hate_items kill people just covers up the fact that people aren't being taught the sane way of dealing with it, and a fraction of them act on it.
It takes an educated mind to entertain a notion without accepting it. Banning's just a lazy copout to a deeper problem.
Pym
Yahoo's Complaint for Declaratory Relief, (.pdf, 3.2MB), December 21, 2000
English Translation of French ruling (.pdf), November 20, 2000
French Court Imposes Speech Restrictions Beyond Its Borders, November 20, 2000
Are we going to ban all auctions of Nazi items on the Internet because France doesn't like it? Are we going to make every auction site block French citizens from looking at Nazi item's?
This is the first step down a long dark road.
Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those that do know me, DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me.
Some people have asked how France can force a Californian company to comply with French law - well, Yahoo wants to do business in one of the largest markets in Europe and has offices and easily arrestable/fineable staff based in Paris.
If you think back a couple of years, the MD of CompuServe in Germany (Felix Somm) was convicted of facilitating the dissemination of pornography via newsgroups. It was not until his case went to appeal at a German Federal Court that his conviction was quashed. Imagine being branded a child pornographer in a court of law because of how your news servers were set up??
As an international company, do you (a) pull out of a major market, (b) risk having your staff arrested or fined, (c)comply or (d) protect the 'right' of people to sell each other the props of their white supremacist fantasies? I would hope that any company I worked for would try to pragmatically comply and keep me and my colleagues out of the clink.
For those genuine militaria collectors, you've lost a forum for trading pieces on the internet. However, I'm sure it won't be long before a auction site springs up to cater for serious collectors - with the added benefit of getting rid of the right-wing nutsos.
The internet is a wonderful thing - but companies that choose to trade internationally have to respect the laws of the territories where they do business.
I single, quick search for "gay lesbian" at Yahoo! auctions turned up 92 items. Sorry, but this is hypocrisy at it's finest. I'm pretty certain that homosexuality is a VERY inflammatory subject for most people, IS actually illegal in some states and in many people's opinion very harmful to the future of society. So is Yahoo! going to pull everything that is "inflammatory"?
I don't see any articles on /. complaining about how Wal-Mart is denying me my "rights" because they are choosing not to carry the abortion pill.
Hey, don't get me wrong!
I don't want to push all the history under a rug and pretend it does not exist. That's probably the worst we could do since the only possible fight against it is education.
What I am against is the cult of racism. It is about allowing people to spread lies and organize racist crimes. I don't agree with the KKK being able to exist in the UK. And ok this be wrong on a "freedom of thought and speech" level but this is not a very good argument since these groups are against even more basic freedoms...
I agree that everybody is more or less racist and was quite surprised to see to which extent people are in the UK (especially in the North). And I thought France was bad...
Anyway, I think you misunderstood my message. I have lived in Germany a few years and I find there attitude towards racism to be both efficient and sensible. And part of it is preventing fachist/racist propaganda in any form.
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
Yahoo has ever right to control what it sells using its system. It can refuse entry or allow entry of any person or item it chooses. It's called freedom.
And you're free to choose another auction site if you're not happy with Yahoo's policies. You are, of course, FORCED to use another auction site if you wish to find something Yahoo won't allow to be sold using its system.
Yahoo will either be successful with this policy or not. It's called free enterprise.
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
to be honest - i dont care of yahoo selling nazi-medals or things linke that - but i read a few of the postings of this thread and now i'm realy confused...
am i right that the most important right in the US is the right of free speach - followed by the right that everybody may arm himself ?
if i want to smoke a simple cigarette in california i am put in an small smoker ghetto - but i could carry posters which glorify violence ?
is it ok for americans if a nazi goes to an kindergarten and convinces the kids that hitler was a nice and honourable man and he was right to kill 6 millions jews ? but its wrong to let them watch me smoking a cigarette or drink a beer ?
i think there is a monumental different view of moral and rights between USA and Europe - for me, the "US-view" looks a little bit canting...
I've come across some Nazi propaganda, I really do not know how I came across it. My father gave it to me (No, not for brainwashing ;) because I'm interested in historical stuff like that. Its written in German and I would like it translated so I can atleast know what it says.
If anyone has ANY kind of information (Like if its valuable!) on: Raubstaat England
The cover features a hand wrapped around a globe with some sort of royal seal on the upper left corner with a banner that reads: "Honni Soit Qui Maly Pense". The book also came with several photo cards..
If anyone has any info, just email me at my address (you know what to do with the nospam part) or just post here for others to see.
...to register offensive-auctions.com?
I mean the author has a point and where there's
a market niche, there will be someone who fills
the need. It's a fscking law of (human) nature
and as immutable as the laws of physics.
Personally, I'de like to see a off-shore (way
off-shore) clearing house site that does streamed
pay per view snuff films of the kidnapped young
of the rich and famious. What better way to test
encryption, multicast, anonymous auction protocols
( http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~fms27/cocaine/ ),
anonymous digital cash and discover exactly
*where* the limits of nation states/rich
individuals end and cyberspace begins.
There's no sense beating around the bush if
you're going to take your freedom seriously.
Like I said, I was intending to reply to your post, but ended up ranting. Sorry.
Also, Yahoo! auctions is going to start forcing people to pay for their listings. Not much, I think it was anywhere from $0.20 to $2.25, but still that is a long way from free for such shoddy auctions as they have on Yahoo. Their listings are a disaster and are not nearly as organized as ebay, and they have a lot less bids as well. There's really no good reason to use Yahoo! auctions anymore, and I would say that the refusal to carry items dealing with hatred and violence are one of the smaller reasons. They just suck all around.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
I know that I'm asking for it, but believe me, I'm not a racist. I honestly don't care what color anyone's skin is... if they treat me well, I'll treat them well, and I hope for vice versa. But tell me something... Why is it that Reverend Jesse Jackson, supposedly the blacks spiritual leader, can use ethnic slurs and racist remarks when addressing other cultures, but anytime any whites (or any non-whites, for that matter) use the n-word, he goes on a rampage? And furthermore, why is it so horrible for whites to use the word when blacks use the word?
And so I'm not just using blacks as an example, the same goes for any whites or orientals or any others that may use cultural slang against others. I'll end this with a George Carlin quote: "It's not the words that are bad; it's the racist using them."
I know this is slightly off-topic, but it does relate, and it is an argument worth discussion. Does anyone care to try to turn this into a /. article? I can promise some long conversations. :-)
Please do. I'd like to respond to you personally to offer some good research sources, but you posted anonymously so I can't.
One good source that debunks 66 common Holocaust-denier fantasies is the "66 QAR" (questions, answers, replies). It happens to be written by two friends and myself and it's a little old (1996, I think) but it's still very much on-target. Most of the lies you'll hear about the Holocaust are addressed in here.
For information specifically about Auschwitz, I recommend The Holocaust History Project's website, at http://www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/. Disclaimer: I happen to be the site's webmaster. Please note that we include reproductions of several documents which deal specifically with the annihilation of the Jews at that death camp.
You may want to read and listen to Hitler's own intentions for the Jews, which he and Goebbels made the climax of a 1940 propaganda film so you know it wasn't just something he said off the cuff.
And you'll also want to listen to Heinrich Himmler's description of the final solution, given in a private talk to SS leaders in 1943. Himmler, Hitler's #2 man, describes how the Nazi intentions are being carried out. Luckily for historians, Himmler recorded his speeches, and this tape was one of the few that survived:
If you're interested in the antisemitic movement to deny the Holocaust, which calls itself Holocaust "revisionism," the best source to start with is Deborah Lipstadt's book Denying the Holocaust. It discusses the origins of such groups as the Institute for Historical Review, which you name; really they're just fancy, pseudoscientific wrappers around the same racism and hate that the world has known since, well, since human beings existed I suppose.
If you have any questions about specific matters, please feel free to email me personally.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
Of course they post stuff that they think matters. It's their site! Do you pay for viewing Slashdot? Are you forced by law to read it? Is someone standing there with a gun to your head, forcing you to read it?
No?
Then what are you complaining about?
You do not have to right to not be offended.
Imagine if they should ban the sale of items supporting Christianity because of what the so called Christians did during the Inqusition. Or perhaps because of the they're a bad influence or christian cult groups like the Heavans Gate or Jones Town. Or perhaps because of the enforced Christanization of europe under Charemane. Maybe they should ban the sale of Catholic related items in Ireland because it could intimidating to the Prodestants, and the converse also applies to Prodistant related items.
If it's available, somebody will find it offensive, deal with it.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Go have a look to the answer I made about his comment. I know English is not one of my native languages but I still thought I was able to get my ideas through :o(
This is not about how right it is to do something or not. This is about the law that every country has the right to live in.
Let's go back to the basic point I am making:
why is there no kid porn for auction on ebay, yahoo or whatever. Because for some people (which happen to be the majority), it is wrong so if another country thinks it's wrong (France, Germany) then it is their right to have it the way they want as well as it's Yahoo's right to decide they want to respect that.
Black holes occur when God divides by zero.
Wrong analogy. This is the Yahoo! auction site, not a store. A better analogy is the newspaper classifieds. Should the newspaper refuse to carry ads for Nazi artifacts?
And here we come to the crux of the matter. The answer to the question is "it depends on whether Yahoo! is subject to U.S. laws or 'international' laws." And so we see how the Internet is furthering globalization and loss of U.S. sovereignty.
I am utterly amazed that everyone is coming down on Yahoo for this - Yahoo wasn't "influenced" by the French Government, they were ruled in violation of the law! They are held liable by the French government for any Frank who finds this stuff on their site.
How is this any different than a U.S. court deciding Yahoo must be held accountable? It isn't. Yahoo must comply, or block every IP in France. If you have a problem with it, rant against the French government, not Yahoo!
related to Yahoo now offends me greatly,
I demand that all traces of "Yahoo"
be removed from the Internet.
Smelly fish don't offend Penguins. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
Big brother knows what's best anyway so just let him determine what we can and can't see, say, do and think. Stop struggling, it'll only leave marks.
anyway, it seems more and more that the very ideas and 'innovations' to protect people are doing the very opposite. Witness the very idea of censorware in Public Schools et al. Sure it may block goat sex sites, but it also seems to block a whole plethora of legitimate research sites... so much for the use of the internet (and technology in general) to promote societal growth and knowledge.
When you think about it, in terms of seeking a cause not the symptoms, you notice that the NOW's political PC movement is at the very heart of all this nonsense. The primary problem is not that people get offended easily, nor is it that many do not care how others are effected. Because those are merely attitudes that shape but do not make our actions. The end result is what is important. I could be a warm caring person looking out for others, trying to prevent victims of drunk driving. But if I then go and blow up all alcohol manufacturers and distributers, then place curfues on people being out (to 'stop' people from getting drunk) and arrest children who play to near the street, etc. I will cause much more harm, as history shows us so very clearly. Here on /. many people become livid at the mention of censorware, but take away the computer and the problem still persists. That problem is unequality and multiple standards. First, it comes down to ethics. If society believes in curing a disease by killing the patient then they should not be suprised when the patient suddenly dies, nor should they sue, blame, accuse, shift responsibility onto others (especially if the scape-goated individuals were against the very thing that caused or worsened the problem).
Why aren't there more leaders out there who are teaching the merits of personal responsibility? (Well for one, I notice that those few that do exist are not given air time, remember that sensationalism and rabble rousing gets ratings, not sensible reasoning and logical idealism) If we could make a magical wish about this, would it be to simply end the existence or use of censorware, or would it be to apply a fair system of personal responsibility and accountability, that applies to ALL people, not just the ones who shout the loudest/hire the loudest lawyers/ get the most sensational air time? Most people will agree that there are many things they would give up, or do in private as to not cause an uproar. However, if they have people shoving morals and regulations down their throats for some things, but not all (thus limiting their freedom of speach and expression, but giving an unequal reign of offense to others) they will not see the ones offended nor the law protecting them as good. Sit any group of white kids down and push on them: affirmative action, accusations of racism and bigotry, films of riots, and interviews with people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and Sistah Souljah, etc. Maybe add some people (of any race) to come in and give them 'sensitivity training' and chastise and judge them if they say something that someone somewhere might take offense to, yet say nothing about violence (physical and verbal), censoring, restrictions, etc aimed at them. What you will get after a while is a group of very racist, hateful, bigoted and small minded kids... you will have tomorrow's killers and rapists.
However, teach them reasoning and logic, positive and safe ways to deal with conflict, and self reliance... you will have tomorrow's leaders and teachers. What we as a society need to learn is to not apply multiple standards to what we do. To avoid hypocracy and complacency. The lackadaisical (sp?) attitudes of the masses generaly gets translated into the passing of stupid laws and regulations.
I just wish for the day that Americans (actually everyone) stop trying to control their neighbors and respect others equally.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
So should the individual not have the same rights to publish on the web as (s)he had in days gone by to establishing a printing press?
You have the right to pursue happiness - that doesn't mean you'll get it though. Likewise you have the right to travel, but that doesn't entitle you to a free plane ticket. In the same way, while the Gov't isn't allowed to stifle your speech, there's absolutely no obligation for anyone (large or small) to actually print it - or to host the site on their servers.
You've pointed out a pet peeve of mine... whenver some company (say, Walmart) refuses to carry a particular album or book, the cries of "censorship!" go up. That's not censorship, it's a company deciding what they want to sell. Only the government can censor.
I wish everyone would stop whingeing about how Yahoo is selling out and just use another Auctioneer. No-one is forcing you to use Yahoo.
You live in a free world. If Yahoo takes this course of action and profits from it, then it can be seen to have made a good business decision.
I assume that Yahoo wants to succeed, to dominate the market. Since when did McDonalds sell Nazi-themed Big Macs? There may be some demand for them, but big companies will do anything to avoid being associated with such things.
It seems that Yahoo are simply making a logical business decision. The internet is vast, if you want to sell racist memorabilia, find an auctioneer who'll take it on. If you can't find one, there's a gap in the market for an enterprising young company.
Your rights aren't being violated, but Toys R Us's rights may be getting violated, if the reason they don't sell the movie is that the force of law prevents them. Likewise, in this case, it is not the auction sellers and buyers who are being repressed, it is Yahoo itself.
It can be argued that whenever anyone's rights are violated, it hurts everyone since it undermines the presumption that those rights exist.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yahoo decided it would serve everyone better if they no longer offered that merchandise. Big friggin deal. If someone in France wants something like that, they can...
A. Make it themselves!
B. Get it somewhere else on the web.
Remember people... the government is always working to suppress the scary, the monsters, the artists, etc,. etc... as long as the scare anyone in the "majority". It's that simple. Thats why the underground exists, and thats why I stay in those shadows and don't associate with the ignorance of the masses. I'm me... and I can buy Nazi shit, or whatever I want to... without the blessing of anyone else anywhere. NO ONE will change that! But if you don't want something repressed, don't push it out to the masses... i.e. don't sell drugs online... don't sell illegal weapons online. Just do what the underground does, and let them flow and ebb amongst us. It's been working for hundreds of years, it's not going to stop because some stupid (French, American, whatever.) government wants it to stop.
Thanx... rant off.
I'm not using one yet.
Seriously, it's tempting. These hypocritical bookburners are no better than the people they claim to be fighting against, if these are the tactics they want to use.
The problem here isn't that Yahoo isn't selling this stuff anymore. The problem is that they were forced to stop selling it by a third party which ought to have no jurisdiction anyway, solely because of this group's own ideals. The precedent is dangerous.
Or, to put it another way, I have the right to speak or not speak as I please. I do not have the right to silence another for no better reason than my own paranoia, however. But this is what happened here.
----------
First, Yahoo are offering a service into France, so they are *bound to observe French law*, *so far as it is possible*. Two important clauses there. In the first place, the fact that Yahoo is an American company is irrelevant. They are offering a service into France, so their physical location matters for liability purposes no more than Exxon's company head office in Delaware matters when one of their tankers spills oil all over SouthEast Asia or something. The test for whether they are "offering a service into" France is a complicated one (it's most usually relevant for tax purposes), but it's a fairly settled body of law. If Yahoo were merely offering a service that French citizens happened to be able to pick up, things might be different, but the existence of yahoo.fr means that this particular train left some time ago.
Right, that's cleared up. Now, secondly, it's an important principle that the law does not compel anyone to do the impossible. If there were genuinely nothing that Yahoo could do, a French court would never fine them. It would end up simply ruling that they could not offer the service in France (reread what is meant by "offering a service" above). In fact, the judgement sets out a number of things that Yahoo could have done but refused to do.
The facts of the case are interesting in themselves. Yahoo removed the Nazi auctions from yahoo.fr, but placed a link reading "If you want to research more about this subject, please visit yahoo.com". This seems a bit blatant to me; they were attempting to comply with the letter rather than the spirit of the ruling and ended up complying with neither. Of course, it's the letter rather than the spirit of the law which is binding, but Yahoo seemingly got bad advice on whether they had done enough, and ended up needlessly annoying the court.
Second, the court ruled that Yahoo could and should have set up their site so as to refuse requests from French IP addresses or which came from clickthroughs from yahoo.fr. Yahoo's defence against this (a similar line of argument is implied in the article above) was that such a ban would be easy to circumvent using an anonymiser. This misses the point. The point is that someone who goes to the trouble of using an anonymiser and avoiding yahoo.fr, is pretty clearly intentionally buying Nazi regalia in the knowledge that it is illegal to do so in France. Someone who just goes through a link saying "to research this further ..." has a pretty good chance of being able to claim that they did not know that they were doing anything wrong, but just happened to surf through. By not putting up even token barriers which require any effort at all to circumvent, Yahoo was effectively providing an alibi for French Nazis. This, in the eyes of the court, pretty much implicated them in intentionally offering a service dealing Nazi regalia in France.
Finally, Yahoo could have put a banner on the appropriate pages warning that material was made available which was against the law of France, but refused to do so. I have absolutely no fucking idea why they refused this one, but I suspect that they just wanted to play hardball in the hope that a patriotic American court would put down an order against the French court making the fine unenforceable.
So that's what happened in France. The French were not demanding the impossible; they were asking for a show of good faith, which Yahoo refused to give them.
Furthermore, nobody seems to have wondered whether Yahoo's decision to get out of the Nazi regalia business was not a purely commercial decision. It certainly did not generate any really favourable publicity, and they may have received legal advice that they couldn't rely on the protection of the American court. There was certainly an avenue open to them which would have allowed them to keep on selling regalia to Americans (NB: They Didn't! and quite clearly said so in their terms of service) while satisfying the French courts. If Yahoo wanted to avoid making a test case for the feasibility of local internet regulation, that was their choice, not that of the French.
In conclusion, the assumption running through 80% of this thread -- that this case is anything to do with the French attempting to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction -- is incorrect.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Doesn't anyone know what it is anymore? And I don't want to hear that "world without borders" crap--it isn't true. I know for a *fact* that I don't want to be sued by China because I don't agree with their form of government. Likewise, I have no right to sue a Chinese official for not being involved in a federal republic. Remember, unity comes at the price of diversity and self-rule.
is something which translates as "banalisation", or "trivialisation" of the Holocaust. To treat Nazi regalia as merely amusing bric-a-brac to be collected and traded as if they were Pez dispensers is an affront to Holocaust victims, and it is one from which the French government has decided that they deserve to be protected.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
It's not the content I'm complaining about... it's the fact that the posting was so dripping in subjectiveness that I could barely find the news entry in it.
-Chris
...More Powerful than Otto Preminger...
Of course you are right; the USA, not France, is the country in the world with a reputation for attempting to enforce its laws extraterritorially, as a quick internet search on the phrase "Helms-Burton" will show.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
...what's the "Right Thing To Do?"
What they're doing is complying with French law (which is the right thing to do, probably), but they're not doing this because it's the Right Thing To Do.
This in a way relates back to the Singapore story of the early 90's where that one American committed a crime in Singapore and recieved the "Singapore punishment" of a lashing. America begged and pleaded to stop the "cruel and unusual" punishment, but it was carried out.
Too many people believe in American imperealism. So far, everyone feels it's a good thing when it comes to the internet (since America pioneered the internet, they should have the right to put their foot down in whatever country they want, right?). So, when one country finally says that they're tired of American imperealism (I'm not the least bit surprised that it's the French), we feel offended?
Yahoo's a business. They realize that if they want to run a business in a different country in a different part of the world, they'll need to conform to another country's rules and regulations. Here's the best example I can come up with: Say Columbia began a web page where one could purchase cocaine from their website at "Rock-bottom warehouse prices and shipping to anywhere in North and South America!" I guarantee you that the US would try their darndest to stop that website from being able to opporate here in the United States. Or what if some other country believed so whole-heartedly in free speech that child pornography was legal there? Even though it might offend that country's "democratic principles," the US would try to make sure it would be blocked out here in the US.
If our military wasn't enough, we're now spreading our entire English culture to the rest of the world. We can pay 50 million dollars to get a potentially-worth billion dollar suffix (.tv) from a country that's expected to be entirely underwater in 50 years. When we want something we can buy it. Of course, too many people don't understand that even though we're the most economically powerful country in the world, but we contain less than 5% of the world's population. Maybe we should respect the rest of the people that live on this Earth?
www.naziauction.com
www.naziauction.net
www.naziauction.org
www.naziauction.tv
www.naziauction.cc
www.naziauction.ws
I smell a business opportunity... ;-)
--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
So maybe I'm complacent, but I see a glimmer of hope out of this in the long run. The fundamental difference (at least for the purposes of this discussion) between Wal-Mart and Yahoo! is that Wal-Mart can easily adjust its sales policies on a country-by-country basis, but Yahoo! can not, or at least has chosen not to in this case.
So in response to a single nation's demands, Yahoo! has taken action that affects the entire world. What happens when Upper Mahabowa decides to outlaw references to the Pacific Ocean? Or any other outrageous demand you choose to use as an example? Strip out the specifics and what you're talking about is a single nation imposing its will on the whole world, because there's no good way to separate one nation from another.
So what's good about that? There's real, strong, commercial motivation for developing free speech laws on a global basis. We'll have to agree, as a world, what degrees of restriction are acceptable and what are unacceptable. And that will advance the cause of free expression, not hinder it.
'Cause free expression doesn't exist in the mythical state of nature. It only exists because there are laws that allow it to exist.
I don't think that anyone is saying that you should be entitled to a free ride. I may have the right to travel but this does no good if all of the travel companies refuse to sell me a ticket (at any reasonable price). Similarly the freedom of the press is of no use if no paper supplier is willing to sell paper to the printer. Web publishing should, in my opinion be the same as printing with the role of the ISP being analogous to the paper and ink supplier rather than the publisher (who is the page author or owner.) ISPs should not be concerned with the content in same way as paper and ink suppliers do not normally concern themselves with the content of the books/periodicals produced using materials they supply. ISPs should only concern themselves with (and charge the customers for) the resources (bandwidth, storage, maintenance) used.
When a government threatens (or engages in) legal action over allowing Nazi material to be sold, and the company in question decides to stop allowing it, government influence is present. That is censorship. To deny it is to say that shooting someone and taking their money is robbery, but *threatening* to shoot them until they hand it over is a business transaction. A choice made under coercion is not a choice at all.
The argument "this is not a violation of consumers' rights" has been raised. True. It isn't, at least not directly. It's a violation of *producers'* rights.
Robert Hutchinson
Robert Hutchinson
Smash it. Smash it good.
France should be outlawing christian, muslim, and jewish paraphenalia as well since these are the three largest hate/racist groups in the world excluding Asia. The christians hate everyone including themselves (Ireland), the muslims hate everyone besides themselves, and the jews hate everyone smaller than themselves. More people have been killed by religion-based hate than by any other institution.
I don't think that anyone is saying that you should be entitled to a free ride. I may have the right to travel but this does no good if all of the travel companies refuse to sell me a ticket (at any reasonable price).
The government can't give you the "right" to a reasonably priced ticket without taking away the travel company's right to charge what they want.
What was wrong with banning the French? They're the hypocrites, which should not be abided by.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Giant international corporations such as Yahoo, GM, or Ford must play the local rules -- American laws, traditions, and human rights have nothing to do with megaconglomerate behaviour and never have. When GM or Ford wished to do business in Nazi Germany, the local (that is German) divisions of Ford & GM had to obey Nazi "law" (despite it oppression of human rights) -- and Germany requires that megaconglomerates obey its laws when its services and products are sold in modern Germany even when this violates human rights (witness the concern over Windows because some small part of it has a chance and tenuous connexion to Scientology).
Why should France be any different than Nazi Germany or Budesrepublic? France is in Europe; it follows European traditions of government: the divine right of kings, the omnipotent state founded on racial purity or upon the knowldege of the iron laws of history, the will of people as embodied in Il Duce, etc. (It's not as if Germans have *ever* had freedom of speech or relgion -- or the French.) I certainly don't expect Yahoo! to be moral than Ford or GM. Business is business and business always triumphs human rights.
If money doesn't buy happiness, you're not spending it right.
No, but they can give you the right to not have to pay more for the ticket just because the airline doesn't like you (ie you are black, female, muslim, short, old, democrat, etc... ).
By that logic the government can also give me the "right" to be free from Ku Klux Klan or Nazi propoganda by ordering publishers and ISPs not to carry their content.
Guaranteeing me freedom from discrimination can only be done by supressing everyone else's right to discriminate. And while that's a very politically correct concept, it's also one step away from ThoughCrime, where the 1st Amendment will only protect "correct" speech.
Rights come attached to responsibilities - including the realization that other people have the right to tell you to take a flying leap at rolling donut.
My dad is a ww2 vet and lost many friends (he fought for America in the pacific) I suppose they died for "freedom" (don't they always?) But the end result? It's stunning how easily yahoo! cratered to this french stupidity.
I enjoy books such as "Kursk", "Stuka Pilot", "Zero Fighter", "U Boat Commander" -- all of which tell the stories of officers, soldiers, battles and engineering feats of all the combatants of ww2.
The leadership of Japan and Germany was awful. But the troops (and officers) -- for the most part -- did their job with pride and pain.
One of my pals in college had a uncle who was an SS officer...the Uncle knew nothing of the death camps til near the end of the war, and was horrified by it. He was also 1/4 jewish (kept it hidden, of course). Pal still has the uniform and medals in a chest and is very proud of his uncle. My pal also served in the US Air Force.
Soldiers fight, feel pain, and sometimes die. That is their job. It is an ugly thing to see ignorance and stupidity on an upward trend in the world...it is this type of flawed logic (that of the french government) that leads to war.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Anyone who doesn't see this is a disaster isn't looking very far. The solution I would like to have seen implimented was for the cabal to remove all French Internet Address allocations. Then no one in France would be able to see the auctions - or anything else. France could have a national 'intranet'. This would be an appropriate action. -OR- Every IP connection into france could be sent to the routers of the two organisations that laid suit. Then they could do the filtering for the whole country. Should they be unwilling or incapable of doing this, then the rest of the French will end this stupidity. Bear in mind the the repeated, demonstrated French contempt for international law and the law of other countries. This can be seen as yet another francophile attempt to prove they are a more important nation than any other. If this is "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" and gets moderated, then I am sorry, but I consider the French Courts actions and Yahoo's response to fit into ALL those categories. Zero Sum [ Vescere bracis meis]
Zero Sum (don't amount to much). [root@localhost]
In the USA the freedom of the government and of businesses to discriminate is limited to criteria other than those put forth in the law (a bank can refuse you a loan because you are an obnoxious asshole but not because you are black). This limits the abilty of anyone to infringe the rights of anyone else. My rights begin where everyone elses end. The KKK has every right to hate black people but they don't have the right to throw them out of their business just for being black. If you exercise your right to tell me to take a flying leap at rolling donut that doesn't put me under any obligation to do so.
I believe that Yahoo! has every right to decide for themselves wether or not to host auctions of hate group memorabilia, and I have the right to view it or not as I choose.
The important thing to remeber is that there are no rights without tradeoffs. The First Amendment simply draws the line further in favor of publishers than people who want to be published. Clearly "Ebony" has no obligation to publish letters from the KKK and "Soldier of Fortune" doesn't have to print articles from Mothers against handguns.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
so which p*rson at Yahoo can I p*tition to r*mov* all instanc*s of the off*nding vow*l from th*ir w*bsit*?
That particular phrase means a lot of things, ranging from `we will rise up, cast you off and this time we're not going to play nice' to `we're going to conquer every obstacle you Yankee carpetbaggin bastards have placed in our way and then some, beat you at your own game and reveal you for the hypocritical Puritan-descended horse-rumps you are.' The meaning varies from speaker to speaker and from time to time.
I generally use it more in the latter sense than in the former. Wreaking war upon New England and her allies is not feasible. Taking them on head-to-head, beating them in the economic game and displaying the value of our own culture is.
>A. what business do the french, or any other
>government have telling foreign businesses how
>to run things?
If you want to do business in France, the French government has every right to tell a business what to do.
>B. why is it yahoo's responsibility to enforce
>the rules of the French government?
Yahoo is offering a service available in France.
If you were shipping widgets to France, you would be obligated to obey the laws of France with respect to your French customers.
>C. what happens when the next country in line
>doesnt like something on yahoo auctions?
Comply with the laws, or don't do business in country X.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
I find it to be rather sad that some people elect to walk the ignorant path.
Stalin wasn't as bad as Hitler, in my opinion he was worse. So somebody is going to approach me and say that one life is as precious as one hundred. The humanist way of thinking is sometimes rather horrible. Which is worse? 6 million Jews or 21 million Soviets?
Ludo Martens is a Communist. Communism has done far worse to our environment and people than any other religious cult. Yes, I do say religious cult, because that it is. One leader, one party. Very similar to the NSDAP, which decentant religions I do not endorse either. The rule of the proletariate? Not something that is possible according to a few prominent people, such as Sigmund Freud, Freidrich Nietsche et al.
And how dare you say that my grandfather was "plain bad"? Have you ever taken the time to read up about the SS? The SS was a huge organization led by a horrible man, Heinrich Himmler. Himmler had many henchmen, especially one very "dedicated" one. His name was Reinhard Heydrich. He was so very into his task that he carried dossiers on Der Reichsfuhrer himself. Now, these people had an organization called SD (Sicherheits Dienst) under them, which controlled concentration camps and so on. There were many other SS organizations as well. The Waffen SS (Weapons SS) was an infantry organization. It had mechanized batallions and regular conscripts. These soldiers were given better training, better weapons and more hazardous assignments than the Wehrmacht (regular German Army).
My grandfather fought for the Waffen SS in the Latvian Legion. HOW IN THE WORLD did he have time to kill Jews in concentration camps when he was out, being shot to pieces on a battlefield?! That, let alone the fact that almost EVERY soldier that fought for the SS or the Wehrmacht were kept in the dark about the Holocaust.
Not everybody in the SS were guilty of the Holocaust. In fact, a very miniscule part of the SS was guilty of anything else but fighting for their lives.
Being part of Hitler's murder machine? Well my friend, you have just told me that you think Stalin wasn't such a bad ol' chap. Stalin killed a large part of my family. So you go take a few aspirins and think about it all. I doubt very much that you have the courage to show yourself and talk about this openly, since you have elected to post as "Anonymous Coward". It is very easy to be brave when one doesn't have to be seen.
But this is a free country. You have the right to your opinions. Just don't expect me to agree with you, for obvious reasons. You have no idea about who my Great Grandfather was. He was a great man. He fought with the SS for the sake of his own country - Latvia, which Stalin raped, mutilated and destroyed. From the sounds of it, I assume that is a whole lot more than you have ever accomplished. I may be wrong...
Alex
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand