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."

Comments

Yeah!

[Juju]

Now let's hope that a Thai federal judge will rule that Yahoo! is not bound by the US ruling that demanded that all Child-porn memorabilia be removed from its auction site. It would be a nice surprise to have a sensible ruling come out of a federal court in times like these.

And no, I don't think this is funny!

Re:Yeah!

[IronChef]

Personally, I think that anti-hate laws are a good thing. Freedom can only exist within limitations.

I think anti-hate laws are crazy. Pure crazy moon-talk.

It's ALREADY illegal to beat someone up/kill them/etc. Is it really worse to do it because they're black (for example) than to do it because they nailed your wife? Why is one cause worthy of different legal treatment? Ooh, it's a crime based on HATE rather than old fashioned RAGE and STUPIDITY, we better throw the book at them!

Anti-hate laws are pandering to special-interest groups, and/or are some way for white guys to salve their own guilt about past events. In the end, I think they will do more harm than good, because the give special status to some people and that makes other people resentful.

(I don't support affirmitive action either, I think it cheapens the accomplishments of the minorities it claims to protect. But that's another argument.)

It's time for us all to grow up and lose our hyphenated nationality titles and all the stupid laws that protect & encourage their use.

Just my $0.02... better go put on my asbestos typing gloves now...

Re:Yeah!

[bay43270]

Why is this a distinction? Do we want to drop all charges against Milosovich because he's 'not actively killing anyone' anymore? You Americans have no statute of limitations so why should this matter? You're simply protecting your own and not supporting other nations (ie France) If Milosovich wants to go on Larry King before we kill him, that's fine. There's no good reason to keep him from speaking (unless you think everyone is so weak minded, that they would follow him). Does that mean he should be forgiven? No. If the people who are selling these things on Yahoo, are killers (which I think would be a big assumption), then put them on trial, and have them put in the big chair. If you just don't like what their auctioning, then don't buy it. As far as supporting France, you can go F### yourself. My grandfather had most of his stomach removed after he dropped into France. He was never healthy again. If France needs our help, they know they have it. If they want to restrict freedoms in the name of fear, then they should expect exactly what they get.

Actually, this opens up a larger question.

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I am a U.S. Citizen that hosts 3 web sites on a server Based in Canada. Who's laws will I need to follow? Are my sites considered free speech? Or do I need to provide a french translation on the site?

This latest ruling, while all good in well in allowing operators to control their own content is just a baby step twords addressing the eventual evolution of laws governing the internet.

World Government

[Dutchmaan]

Situations like this are going to bring about an eventual world government. the case being that there seems to be a need now for some sort of *enforceable* world law or common standard between nations. War will never unify the world, but you can bet petty lawsuits will.

Judges ruling against each other

[Alien54]

I can just see the to judges now, holding each other in contempt.

"We find you offensive, and demand you pay us to relieve some of the stench of your offensive nature"

In other times, disputes like this have led to wars.

Re:I hurts some

[sharkey]

That is a very good point. Let us never forget what happened. Thank you for bringing that up. Banning items that would help people remember the atrocities committed by the Nazis would make it easier to forget, and make learning from history that much harder.

Personally, I have several patches taken as trophies from the uniforms of dead and or captured German soldiers, brought back by my Grandfather after the war. There are a couple af swastikas, several rank and corps patches, and a modest-sized bird o' prey clutching a swastika, printed on linen cloth. I keep them on my shelf, next to my M1 rifle, to remind me of my Grandfather, and of what happened.

Not all collectors are nazi sympathisers

[Tassach]

(and it's virtually always sympathisers that buy this stuff, which is why there is a law against selling it)

Any evidence to support this? While I'm sure neo-nazis love to get their hands on original artifacts, there are a lot of people (WWII veterans & history buffs) who collect war trophies from both sides. Both my grandfathers served in WWII; and we have several family friends who are WWII vets as well. One gentleman in particular, a retired Army colonel, has an extensive collection of artifacts that he
acquired in North Africa and Italy. The barber I used to patronize (also a WWII vet) had a huge display case in his shop of war souvineers. I've met dozens of people who collect militaria, and I wouldn't dare call any one of them a Nazi sympathizer (at least not unless I was looking for a fight). A collector isn't necessarily pro-nazi because he buys German artifacts, any more than he would be pro-slavery because he buys Confederate artifacts, or pro-communist because he buys Soviet artifacts.