Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Not Bound by French Court Ruling
Klerck writes "Luckily, a US federal judge has ruled that Yahoo! is not bound by the French ruling that demanded that all Nazi memorabilia be removed from its auction site. It's a nice surprise to have a sensible ruling come out of a federal court in times like these."
So if an American website is not bound by a French ruling, then perhaps there's hope for a certain Russian Programmer accused of breaking US law.
The months are just too short. I can count the number of days on one hand.
Does it apply in reverse?
Example: DeCSS is legal in France. If I post DeCSS on a US server and this server is a mirror of a French server, does French law and "backup copy" laws apply to the US site as well?
No? Then this decision is nothing more than US protecting its huge mega-corporation. Yes? Then free speech is really better protected.
Just my US$0.02... =)
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
That just means that the French cannot persue the case through the US courts.
If the French court chooses to levy a huge fine for non-compliance on the US side, and seizes Yahoo assets in France as payment, there's bugger all the US courts can do about it. If Yahoo continues to flout what the French court regards as the law, and the French court issues warrants for the arrest of Yahoo executives, then, yes, the US courts wont be used to extradite Yahoo execs, but European courts and those in countries with extradition treaties with France will be able to enforce this should these people ever leave the US.
I don't agree with the situation. But then, I didn't think it was fair when Dimtry was arrested for activities that are perfectly legal in his own country that were performed in his own country. It's entirely hypocritical for the US to expect citizens of other countries to obey its laws globally, but expect its own citizens to be able to ignore those of other countries.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
You can have the freedom to be a racist hate-monger all you want, as long as you don't play DVDs on Linux.
(This message has been brought to you by the US Government, owned and operated by the MPAA, RIAA, et al.)
It's funny to see this described as a sensible ruling. Well, the ruling is not surprising, and I'm personnally quite happy with it. But it clashes big time with the rules US courts have developped regarding the application of US law abroad, especially when it comes to anything Internet or telecom related.
So far, american courts have used the most far fetched factual elements to tie any dispute to US jurisdictions and apply US law to them.
Now what? All national laws are equal, but some nationality are more equal than others?
We demand that all terrorist assets be frozen by all countries "or else" (which is not to say I don't agree with that action), but we won't brook anyone telling us to not sell essentially terrorist "memorabilia". Consistency is great, isn't it?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
On one hand, the US can go on and impose their laws (Helms-Burton, etc.) on other countries when these are just doing something that they simply don't like (like talking to Cuba or any other country on the US blacklist), something that does not hurt the US in any way.
On the other hand, when the actions of US companies have a direct impact on what goes on in other countries, go against the laws of said countries (like prevention the spread of hate litterature), the US entities are not bound by the laws of other countries.
What the french judge said, at the urging of jewish activists and other anti-racism groups, was basically "do whatever you want in *your* country, but abide by our laws in *our* country". In this Age of the Internet, where so-called "local" actions can have global consequences, this was not un-reasonable.
The only signal that non-americans get out of this is that the US thinks its above anyone else, that it can do as it pleases wherever it wants to do it and that it has little respect for laws and customs of other countries. That it thinks it has "the right" to interfere in other countries' affairs (Helms-Burton, their very active involvment in the recent Nicaragua election, etc.), while other countries can't say anything on the activies of US companies and/or can critisize (sp?) moronic decisions of the US gov't (Kyoto, etc.).
Then don't wonder why the US is so hated abroad -- and contrary to Dan Rather said on Letterman's, they don't hate the US because they envy it. They hate it because it can be such a idiotic bully, at times.
But I don't want to live in a democracy and in the USA I don't. And I don't want another culture that, while they may understand free speech, doesn't want free speech. You are aware that many cultures out there do not feel free speech is an admirable or useful goal.
And what makes you think that a world government would be a democracy? Or a Republic? Would|Should China or India (and this is why the parent mentioned India btw) get more votes because they have a larger population? If the US votes in a few people that based on region is that any better than if China elects by a party committee?
Nearly a couple of decades ago, my Eagle project was the recreation of a WWI veterans monument for the town's historical society. My troop and I made the forms,dug that hole, poured the concrete, put the names of the dead onto it. Those people, and members of my family who were in WWII fought and died so I could enjoy the rights I currently have. Now that I have a son of my own I want him to inherit those benefits and the burdens of responsibility that come with them.
I'm not giving up those rights just because some other country doesn't think the effort to be responsible with free speech is worthwhile.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
We demand that all terrorist assets be frozen by all countries "or else" (which is not to say I don't agree with that action), but we won't brook anyone telling us to not sell essentially terrorist "memorabilia". Consistency is great, isn't it? I have a small distinction to point out: The terrorist money being frozen would have been spent on killing civilians. Those terrorists are active today. Nazi memorabilia are, for the most part, historical artifacts (like a civil war flag or a gun fired by Napoleon). It's not like the money from Nazi memorabilia would go towards funding a new Nazi party.
To take a less emotive (and less badly informed) example, the age of consent in Japan is 14. Let's say Yahoo! Japan splashes some raunchy pictures of a 14 year old Japanese celebrity that push but don't break the boundaries of Japanese law.
Explain why it would be right for a US judge to tell Yahoo! Japan to remove the images, simply because they might be viewed by US viewers.
For bonus marks, go on to explain why this wouldn't make it right for (e.g.) an Afghan court to tell Yahoo! US to remove pictures of Hilary Clinton, because she's not wearing a veil.
Here's the thing. The onus is on the government of the country of the viewer/purchaser to police their own citizen's actions. Trying to cut the "evil" off at its source is simply abrogating responsibility and exporting morality.
France can tell her own citizens not to buy Nazi items, just as they can tell them not to use Anglicised words (and they do). They can tell any Yahoo! outfit operating in France to stop selling anything they like. But they have no more right to tell the US arm of Yahoo! to stop selling anything than the Taliban has to tell France to stop allowing women to go around unveilled just because Afhgan nationals might find pictures of them online.
See how easy it is to use overblown, over emotive arguments to make any point? Won't someone think of the children! will get you modded up for making a point that anybody can understand, but if you make decisions based on the worst that might happen somewhere, then you'll end up living in a pretty stale little global village.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.