Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Not Protected From French Anti-Nazi Laws
snoopsk writes "An appeals
court ruled that Yahoo is not protected from French legal attacks
due to Nazi-related items sold on Yahoo's auction site. Backed by the
ACLU, Yahoo
intends to defend its First Amendment rights should a French court
try to enforce French anti-hate laws. This case could have huge
implications for free speech online if the French courts are successful
in forcing Yahoo to remove this content.
"
"
There's a simple solution: delete the Yahoo.fr site and shut down all French business units. If Yahoo has no presence in France, their laws won't apply. It's not like France is as imperialistic as America; they can't make their laws transcend their borders. Then the problem becomes the French governments' and how they might block Yahoo.
Does this mean I have to buy all my Nazi gear on UBid now?
*shucks*
Or does France even have a civil liberties union?
... if you don't want to be subject to french law.
Of course, the fact that france is enforcing an anti-nazi law is quite surprising.
at this rate, france may actually do something about the anti-jewish hatred that runs rampant in france.
er wait, someone shoot me
Sure they don't like Nazi stuff, etc, but please, can you really ban that sort of material without banning countless other things? Free speach needs to be protected online.
If they feel this strong about Yahoo's sales items, why not just ban Yahoo in France(like China does with a ton of sites) until, if ever, they feel the need to remove the content.
Boxing Equipment Reviews
The BBC is looking into multicasting for UK isps... I remember these sorts of stories about Google and Ebay and others... Why can't we let IP block decide or .fr or similar? Let us not forget that France's child porn laws I hear are somewhat less than in the US... but also, they they and Germany were the only ones to have the balls to stand up against the US over Iraq, but perhaps that had something to do with oil for food... oh wait... shit... goddamn elections
If you RTFA, there's not much background info....Here's a link....
2 ,353264,00.html/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,651
IANAE (European), but I have a question (Don't jump on my case, please)....
Why do most European countries insist on covering up any history of Hitler? Yes he was evil, yes he did bad things, but history is history, and not changeable......We in the US do not hide the Civil War, slavery, or even racism. Any insight would be appreciated...
-thewldisntenuff
My MythTV HowTo
So Yahoo is using the American Civil Liberties Union to fight the French, in France over their 1st Amendmants Rights gaurenteed by the United States Contitution. Yeah I can see that going well.
Do you yahoo?
A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
to test their newly-exercised imperial hegemony. Does the First Amendment to the American Constitution apply within French borders? Specifically, in commerce with French citizens?
Yeah, those French anti-Nazi laws seem to be working real well.
Breakfast served all day!
This is a conflict. Aren't the French supposed to have surrendered by now?
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
Is there an FCLU? I don't really see what the ACLU and the First Amendment have to do with france...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
How many more times are we going to let the courts, Congress, the President, etc. surrender our national sovereignty like this? Don't we pay them to follow and enforce the law, not surrender it to foreign entities?
Yeah, this'll probably get marked Flamebait for asking such a provoking question.
There is a difference between "insightful" and "inciteful" other than spelling.
I think the most logical course of action should be for Yahoo! to withdraw its entire business from France by firewalling out all IP space known to be from France from all of their products. If France continues to enforce its policies against the American-aimed .com version of American-based sites (rather than their .fr spinoffs which were already Nazi-free-zones) such as Google, they'll eventually be left with a rather useless Internet...
the 9th circuit court is a gigantic crapschoot. its the most overturned - their insanely good decisions and their incredibly retarded decisions. from saying that the pledge of alliegance shouldn't be mandatory, the grokster decision, and now this. they've obviously got much better drugs than i do.
Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
it was the Americans that saved them Frenchmen from saluting to the Fuhrer.
I know we Americans are criticized a lot for being ignorant of other cultures, but this one might just take the cake?
Yahoo intends to defend its First Amendment rights should a French court try to enforce French anti-hate laws.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure France isn't bound by the United States Constitution.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
How so? This case would only have jursidiction in France. If worse comes to worst, just don't do business in France. It sets no legal precedent anywhere else.
Wow, slashdot has become waaay too liberal. I quit.
Better yet, I surrender.
should a French court try to enforce French anti-hate laws.
Um... aren't the French themselves being hateful by outright banning Nazi-related items.?
How is a government supposed to stop people believing things in their country? BTW Where the hell did you get the info that there is anti-jewish sentiment in France?
Last I checked french people don't like the U.S., but that doesn't mean that they don't like jews. I hadn't heard that they hated jews ... considering their history, that would seem really weird.
is a nice juicy Free Trade Agreement between France and the US. That way, French law would simply be overruled by US law, and everyone could be happy
France sucks.
In fact, thre's a law in France making it a crime to "attack the character of the French President." That, combined with communist control of many of the French journalist's unions, means that many stories (such as all the members of the French government, past and present, who had their hands in the ELF bribery scandal, or, for that matter, the UN Oil-for-food scandel) never get adequately reported in the French press.
At that's to say nothing of the French journalist who got fired for pointing out that the French press were so incompetently pro-Saddam that the were talking about "terrible" American casualties and "fierce" Iraqi resistence right up until Saddam's statue was toppled.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Let's put this ruling in the proper context...
The US 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court said that Yahoo! cannot go running to the US courts to seek protection under the First Amendment from the ruling of a French court... go appeal your losses in France in France!
However, in the same breath they also warned the French that should they ever try to take their French verdict to a US court for help in getting collection, don't bother. You can't get protection from bad French verdicts from the US courts in part because, well, French verdicts don't work here in the first place! So long as Yahoo keeps all of its physical assets out of France, there wouldn't be much the French can do to them.
Yahoo intends to defend its First Amendment rights should a French court try to enforce French anti-hate laws.
Well good luck on that one. Yahoo's lawyer should know better than that. There is no right of free speech in France. Matter of fact, there isn't any such concept pretty much anywhere else but in the US. As a side note, the first amendment is one of the US' greatest gems, that Americans should be proud of around the globe, and it makes me sad to see the current administration tread on it without anybody doing anything about it, but I digress...
In France, there is *SO* no concept of free speech that there are laws to prevent people from saying anything remotely bad about jews. For example, if your opinion is that jews control the banking system and you voice it, you can be prosecuted and sent to jail. Whether or not whatever you say is true, the act of saying it puts you in jeopardy in France.
Remember the Faurisson case? Pr. Faurisson was a revisionist. He thought gas chambers didn't exist and said so. Well, he was prosecuted for some "hate speech" crime or something. If my memory serves me right, I seem to recall Noam Chomsky giving a speech in France about how he thought Faurisson was a crackpot but he should be allowed to expose his nutcase theories freely, and he himself was threatened by a French judge to be careful not to cross the line if he wanted to avoid trouble himself.
So, Yahoo really should know better than provoke the French judicial system. They're positively and admitedly anti free-speech, and wanting to assert "firste amendement" rights in France is as pointless as trying to squelch the KKK in the America.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Surrender france or we send you yahoo.fr, oh wait, they surrendered already.
isn't it in their fuckedup constitution that they must surrender to every threat and fire back at US whenever they can? (by protecting their nation of pigs and muslims)
...since when do we listen to the French?
I'm having trouble understanding what is peculiar about this particular legal issue. Could someone please highlight the important points for me, making liberal use of bold and italics?
Excellent troll. I admire your style, one line of genuinely insightfull comment on legal jurisdictions, followed by 2 lines of "I hate frogs" jingoistic rethoric. I'm impressed.
Of course, the fact that france is enforcing an anti-nazi law is quite surprising.
Its not like they were ever, you know, invaded and occupied by Nazis or anything, right?
I'm surprised that years of deprivation under Nazi occupation could leave any stigma like that...who'd have thought?
the anti-jewish hatred that runs rampant in france.
Yup, them frogs sure are racist!
You can't take the sky from me...
Sic Tennessee on France?
The local community standards knife cuts both ways.
Do you think "Friends of Osama" should be able to openly sell "Celebrating the attack on the Twin Towers" t-shirts (bad example, quickly made up)?
;-)
What if they opened a store in Times Square?
Don't you think that might incite a riot or something? Isn't that a bit *too* close to home?
And what if those t-shirts were being used to incite a whole new generation of Osamas to finish what he started? Wouldn't that upset you just a little?
Using Iconography from previous terrors to promote new terrors is not (IMHO) a good thing.
That's my rough interpretation of the French law. Do I agree with it? Not 100%, but I can see where they're coming from.
Yadda yadda 1st amendment or whatever rights (don't ask me, I'm a Brit in LA).
cLive
-- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
You let us sell our Nazi crap and we'll let you sell all the Jerry Lewis retrospective DVDs you frogs can crank out.
A lot more than Yahoo need be worried here. Once there is case law that a the US operations of a company are subject to laws of foreign nations (not that is exactly the case with Yahoo) hungry lawyers will be nipping at everyone and anyone.
Whats to stop a another group in europe suing a US company with only web operations? Who's to say that the final ruling on this wont be stretched to take this instance into account.
Come! one! come! all!
Get! your! Naz^H^H^HPetain! paraphernalia! now! on! Yahoo!
Bon jour mon ami
What a stupid comment. The point is not to enforce American laws but to not enforce French laws on the all of the internet. If France wants to set up their own Great Fire Wall, let them. There is no reason why the rest of the Internet needs to bend over backwards and kiss their asses. It isn't an American law being enforced, it is a stupid French law they are trying to shove down the throats of the rest of the Internet. In case it would be the French who are being the "OMFG imperialist!!!!111!!!!"
The Internet can not exactly bend to the lowest common denominator. It can not be subject to the law of EVERY nation. Maybe France just needs to come to grip with free speech. Even better, I would just rather see Yahoo pull out of France. If France wants to censor its citizen, let them. If France wants to cut themselves off from the world because they fear there citizens are too dumb to make informed decisions without the government regulating what they can and can not see, let them. No loss for me.
Hank: By the way, Homer, what's your least favorite country; Italy or France?
Homer: France.
Hank: [chuckles] Nobody ever says Italy. [sets the coordinates of a giant laser gun]
What should be our position on this matter?
I think france has just found a way to be hated more, if it's even possible.
Yahoo certainly has first ammendment rights in the USA, but France isn't part of the US. How are they going to defend a law or right, which isn't part of the french legal system? That's like using the Basic Constitutional Law (aka constitution) of Germany in Vanuatu.
Just take a look at the Foreign Claims Act in the US if you want to know how local law can have much influence on global acting companies.
I don't read replies by ACs.
That, combined with communist control of many of the French journalist's unions, means that many stories [...] never get adequately reported in the French press.
I'm so glad CNN and Fox News aren't in the hands of those dirty commies, so we always get FAIR AND BALANCED reporting from the US press.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"Yahoo intends to defend its First Amendment rights should a French court try to enforce French anti-hate laws"
I must have missed a day in Euro history. Does France have a first amendment that protects free speech?
Look folks, enforcing our laws in other countries isn't going to be any easier if we insist they have to NUMBER them the same way, too!
Easy.. Yahoo! = American company.. Fuck the French!
What is your penile percentile?
If we were to protect Yahoo from any foreign complaint, then we'd have the opposite effecte where someone could just pick someplace where there was no laws to speak of to put up stuff like kiddie porn and 419 scams. (er, uhm, right).
If we want the right to go after illegalities in other countries, then we have to allow the reciprocal right.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
You are an idiot, or trolling.
Attacking the character of Jacques Chirac is practically a national passtime in France. He's disliked almost as much as Americans dislike Bush. If you actually knew anything about France, you wouldn't make such ridiculous claims.
You didn't bother to back up your claims of a "law" with references or even anecdotal evidence, but I'll give you an incredibly mainstream example of Jacques Chirac, Jospin, and the whole gang being routinely made to look like complete and utter idiots (along with most politicians worldwide): Les Guignoles de l'Info. It's a political satire show on French TV that is one of the most popular around; anyone claiming to be French who hasn't seen it, isn't French. That's how common/popular it is.
And it's bloody hilarious.
Actually, the French are quite similar to Americans in many respects, politically. When criticised by others, they will appear to be quite loyal to their government and way of life. But inwardly they are quite aware of their country's shortcomings and are quite harshly self-critical. This is not a bad thing, in my opinion.
It's kind of like "I can hit my little brother, but if anyone else even thinks about it, I'll kick the shit out of him."
Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme
169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001)
Comity: ...the principle of comity is outweighed by the Court's obligation to uphold the First Amendment...
Accordingly, [Yahoo!'s] motion for summary judgment will be granted. Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
So the French lost already. Why are they trying again?
(Taken from CyberLaw: Text and Cases, 2nd Ed. by Ferrera et.al.)
it's not our fault if france is a nation of retards.
The internet is not based on the idea of local laws or community standards (or even national laws)... it is an un-stoppable device that cannot be limited.
Take China... for every site they block, another one pops up. Just because you pass laws saying people can't be Nazi's doesn't mean they go away... it just means they go underground. Personally, I'd rather know who is in the KKK or a member of the Nazi party.
I hate Illinois Nazis.
Surely the availability of "Mein Kampf" serves as a historical record of how screwed up Hitler really was, thus strengthening human rights? I would like to think that more people will be repelled by the hatred in "Mein Kampf" than will be attracted by it. This majority will then keep the minority in check.
Maybe the French being pissed off with Hitler's writings have more to do with revenge for the German army making them look like fools, when they walked around their Maginot Line, than any real concern for human rights?
Banning books is what one does when one is too apathetic to put the effort into refuting them.
It basically comes down to the French couldn't give a shit about human rights but want to look like they do.
So the french are trying to take away Lance Armstrongs latest Tour de France win, as they found he had been using 2 substances banned in france.
Those substances, deodorant and toothpaste.
Thanks, i'll be hear all week, try the veal.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Here's the situation as I see it. www.yahoo.com is hosted in the US. The target audience is the US. If French citizins contact a US company and request material that is illegal in their country... who should be at fault, in France. However, if Yahoo has a French presence, they can be sued, in France, under French law. Whatever Yahoo decides to do to fix that situation is up to them. How this even crossed the borders is what I don't understand.
it seems even Iraq has to be hidden from the american people or at least their search engines, what you can't find can't hurt you egh ?
Example: refusal to extradite criminals who might be subject to a death penalty in the US. Moral indignation is the reason why.
Comity my ass, the same principle applies here. Censorship laws are bullshit in the US, and no US company should have to bend a millimeter to a censorship law that smacks of being written by a Fascist.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Something is happening in another country that is considered illegal activity within France (or where ever). Pot is sold in Holland, there are probably even places that accept phone or fax orders for said pot. But it's still happening in Holland! So if you as a country have a problem with this activity, you have two alternatives in my opinion: block all telephone traffic to said telephone numbers (or, in this case, all traffic to http://auctions.yahoo.com) and/or stop the pot at the border with your own customs service (or, blocking all traffic from http://auctions.yahoo.com).
In either case, it's not a problem for the pot house in Holland. It's not (shouldn't be) their job to enforce the laws of every other country in the world, that is what the police and customs services for each country are for.
You don't like something going on over there? Fine, make sure it can't get in here. Don't expect the people over there to give a flying #$% about your beliefs/laws/whatever (let alone take on the financial responsibility to ensure that your beliefs/laws/whatever aren't broken). It's up to your own government to enforce your own laws. If something is "skirting" the law and making its way into your country, simply cut off it's route into your country and everything is fine. You can't blame the pot shop or the government of Holland if Dutch pot makes its way past your customs service! It's their job to stop it from entering your country in the first place, else what is a customs service paid to do?
On an aside, if I were a decision maker within Yahoo, I'd find it abhorrent that Nazi stuff was being peddled by my company by proxy. I would do my best to make sure it was no longer peddled due to my own personal beliefs. Only governments can censor, private companies can decide what they will and will not profit from. Of course, this has no bearing on the case from a precedent point of view, I just felt it should be said.
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
The parent post was moderated high because it's a good way to deal with the unreasonable French government.
And that's exactly how they are acting: unreasonable and immature.
Your proposition, eh? Well, I'm sure the Yahoo! brass are sitting up and taking notice, and will implement your policies to deal with French hate laws at once. After all, who wouldn't, given your credentials as an impotent, misguided Francophobe?
We, as a whole, embrace France.
We embody the French.
We, Anonymous Cowards, are the epitome of the French.
No, Yahoo's corporate solution will be to comply with French law, and ban sales of Nazi items across its entire system. The Yahoo profit lost from those items, and any fallout, will be smaller than the profit threatened by losing their local presence in the big, rich country of France. It's not like Yahoo is a person, with beliefs or freedoms. It's a corporation, and its fictitous "rights" are just cover for maximizing profit.
--
make install -not war
isn't france a communist country that hates US? Well guess what france, WE HATE YOU, and we don't GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU THINK!
Zyklon B was devloped as a pesticide, and was widely used a such in Nazi camps until someone had the bright idea to kill the inmates with it. Today, it is to some extent still used as a pesticide although obviously they don't call it Zyklon.
Shows that such things do have legitimate uses, including Nazi 'memorabilia', which maybe collected by individuals who have absolutely no facist beliefs.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
As part of ethics class, it was required to consider: What is freedom? You are absolutely right that most people spout off "I can say anything here in the U.S.! That's freedom!" But, you can't. One cannot lie in court, one cannot say false and malicious things against people, one cannot say words that will likely incite or generate a public disturbance, and so on.
For every "freedom" we grant ourselves we must give up a freedom in cost. If we grant ourselves the ability to say anything, then anyone can say anything without merit. A common critique of "free speech" is that it leads to relativism, where there are so many people who say so many things (often contradictory and intentionally misleading) that it becomes practically impossible for any person to figure out what is true or not. In the end, people just accept practically everything they hear if it supports their opinion and rant if it doesn't. Not every country, in fact most don't, want the outcome we have in the U.S. and do not have an interest in letting anyone say just anything.
Personal opinion: You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Allow free speech and it only takes a small number of people who are willing to twist things so far out of context that it becomes impossible to have an informed opinion (Bush v Kerry comes to mind). Disallow free speech and people will eventually come to a norm and threaten those who cross it regardless if it has merit or not (France on Nazism). As an American, I would like to say that freedom to speak is blessed thing, but with free speech being used to attempt to defend any action from responsibility these days, I'm not terribly sure we can tout this horn much longer.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
Chill.
This was a split decision on the 9th Circuit Court.
Few courts are as extreme.
No courts are overturned more frequently.
Actually as a native french speaker living in Seattle, I read/watch US/Swiss/French/UK media and the US media is the least trustful media by far.
If you actually read the french press, you'll find out that it is way more critical of the french government than any US media outlet is of the US government.
Besides, your comment about communists controlling the unions is stupid, France has been under a right-wing government for a number of years now, not a government the communists would support. Moreover, the ELF scandal has been written about widely in the french press, at some point there wasn't a day without an article on TV or in the big newspapers(Le Monde, Liberation...)
You'd better go check again your sources about French media, it's light years ahead of US media when it comes to being free of pressure groups.
I thought the same thing at first, but this is a lot more complicated of an issue.
Suppose I go to france, upon up my breifcase on the streets of Paris and start hawking my neo-nazi wear. When they try to fine me, it would be absurd for me to evoke my first-admendment rights. They don't apply to the french government, and when I'm in france I'm under their jurisdiction.
That's not what Yahoo was doing, and it's going to be interesting to see how the courts take this one. Even if yahoo didn't have any servers in france, the mere fact that the content was accessible to french citizens prompted the french government to levy the fine.
The argument by the french is not that yahoo servers based in france were responsible.less They're saying that anyone who sells nazi memorobilia in such a way that french citzens are capable of buying it is legally liable and subject to a fine. If the french government succeeds in fining Yahoo, then there would be a legal basis to levy a fine against any online merchant who sells nazi memorbilia, regardless of his location if he doesn't block people attempting to access his website from france. The argument could be extened even further - if a brick and mortar store accepts orders placed by phone, and they don't make sure no one from france orders nazi stuff, a precent set by the courts' ruling in this case could hold that US-based brick and mortar store liable to fines by the french for violating french law.
At first I thought yahoo's case seemed stupid for the same reasons you mentioned. But if you think about the possible results if this case sets a precedent (and when don't they) it gets really scary.
My blog
"Yup, them frogs sure are racist!"
uh... most of the anti-jewish stuff going on is due to the European now-accepted-as-fact conspiracy of the NWO perpetrated by America/Israel.
Anyway, you might think of the French as a tolerant people but you'd be mistaken.
i love a joke
That's not what the court held at all. They simply ruled that Yahoo can't sue a Frenchman in the US for suing him in France. Any other result would be absurd and an affront to French sovereignty.
The French plaintiff still cannot enforce his judgment in American courts, so American sovereignty is not affected.
The First Amendment is a shield, not a sword.
> Yahoo intends to defend its First Amendment rights should a French...
Who wrote that?! My LART would like to have a word with you.
Yes, the 'offending material' was long ago yanked from yahoos french site. The French court is now trying to force them to take it down on their other sites as well. They asked the US court to tell the French court they couldn't do that, and the US court basically said 'we don't have the authority to give them orders... but if they ask us to enforce that order we'll laugh in their faces.'
The trouble, of course, is that Yahoo wants to continue doing business in France, and the French courts seem quite willing to seize everything they own in France and pull every dirty trick they can think of to force Yahoo to knuckle under.
Yahoo, and everyone else, should simply stop doing business in France until they come to their senses. It's a shame too, a great country in so many ways - but a country that doesn't recognise freedom of speech cannot be condoned.
It looks to me like France is violating human
rights.
Well, we can go back and land on the beach again.
Even the French deserve freedom.
If U.S. laws are enforced in france, I could see how France is losing it's sovereignty. If French laws are enforced in France, how does that infringe on the sovereignty of the United States?
... you sure wield the word "freedom" like a true American!
Why the French even care. With the exception of a handfull of brave resistance fighters, France seemed "to welcome their new Nazi overlords". Until the allies invaded, the trains ran, the power was on, and everyone was having a fine time drinking wine and playing with the fraulines. Other countries suffered brutally from the Nazis and we don't hear them complaining about stuff on Yahoo or ebay.
So what's up with the French? Some repressed guilt about their complacency?
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Sorry suwain_2, just re-read your comment. At least, I hope you were being sarcastic. ;)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
The dispute is caused because the yahoo.com site hosted content that is apparently at odds with French laws.
It is not specifically targetted at the French market. However, the judge on the case ruled that since French citizens were able to access it, it must comply with French laws.
As other posts mentioned, try to read the post above, replacing "French" with "Chinese" or "Saoudi", to get a feel for what this implies.
Judging by the number of recent attacks on synagogues and other acts of anti-semitism in France, and their shameless support for anti-Semitic Arab dictators like Saddam Hussein, it seems like Nazism would be considered a perfectly acceptable political philosophy over there, right alongside their beloved Communism.
"The 9th Circuit ruling did not directly address San Jose U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel's free speech findings. Instead, the court found that U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction to trump the orders of a foreign court without that foreign government first bringing the dispute into the American legal system."
Basically, the court says they have nothing to fight yet, since the Frogs haven't taken Yahoo! to court in the US. When that happens, Yahoo! may use the US Constitution's first ammendment to protect itself.
Yahoo! had essentially been jumping the gun when it asked US courts to clear it from having to follow the French court order. No need for anyone to get hyterical here...
Are slashdotters so rampantly liberal that in ANY situation, the American MUST be wrong?
When America attempts (foolishly, I might add) to enforce it's laws/standards on the internet, there's nothing but ranting from the slashdot crowd about arrogance and stupidity. But when the French do it, suddenly the "don't do business there if you don't like the laws" crowd comes of the the woodwork and starts arguing about the applicability of French law.
I simply don't understand the liberal penchant for euro-worship. Who cares what the French think/do/say/smell like; did their ban on Nazi Regalia keep the German army from driving tanks straight down the Champs d Elysees? Nope. Will it do anything to stop Neo-Nazis? Nope.
Laws are only as effective as the power to enforce them. France has absolutely no ability to enforce ANY decision they make, save for whining for the US government to enforce it, so why bother reporting the story?
was that the US courts ruled that basically since even Yahoo.com (as opposed to .fr) was accessible from France, French courts could indeed prosecute Yahoo (.com) if it broke French law, but that Yahoo would have to be prosecuted in France, not in the US. French courts have asked Yahoo to at least geo-filter the "nazi" parts of Yahoo auctions .
:
The press also remarks that Yahoo was quite happy to sign-up to the Chinese government's rules even while battling French ones, and attributed that to the larger potential of the Chinese market.
This is indeed a free speech issue, and we in France restrict it
- one may not "promote hate", such as anti-jew, homophobic , anti-immigrants discourse
- one may not divulge the private life of someone else (movie stars, politicians...)
- one may not advocate substance abuse, or any other law-breaking behaviour
On the other end, nudity and sex in particular are very much less frowned upon. We are bemused be the drama in the US over prime time tits, especially since prime time murders are so common.
I think the "private life" part does make sense, and we were quite bemused by Monicagate, both by the fact that Americans made such a fuss about something so private and personal, and that they thought it such a public scandal. We for example learned a few years before his death (couple of years after Monicagate ?) that our previous president (Miterrand) had an illegitimate teenage daughter by a regular lover. The main debate was on whether the newspapers shouldn't have held their tongues.
The "hate speech" and "law breaking" aspects are more debatable. The law aims to avoid the promotion of hate and such, but the net result is that these issues can barely be discussed publicly, ie rationally. It does give a weapon to sue neo-nazis and far-right groups though.
you mean france does not dictate world policy?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
For example, here in California, a local radio show is the ONLY media outlet reporting on the many shennagins of the state government. Arnold calling them girly men was about 1/1000 of what the scumbags in the Scaramento statehouse deserve to be called. Evil, fascist, brainless, retarded, shit-filled, legal citizen-raping vermin begins to get in the same city as the ballpark, and this is coming from a avowed Independent. Honestly, if someone revealed tomorrow inarguable proof that the state legislature was comprised mainly of foriegn enemy agents whose goal was to destroy California economically, I wouldn't be the least bit suprised. It's either that or these people are the dumbest shits ever to walk upright.
You click on the local news, and it's a laundry list of robberies/murders, vague weather reports and snowboarding cats. When they can be bothered to cover a press conference by a state official, it's just reported verbatim. No one ever challenges anything. No reporter ever asks something like, "Do you really think a new 75 cent a gallon gas tax even approaces the outer reaches of coherent sanity at this point in time, and have you considered how much revenue it will actually bring in when the California economy basically evaporates overnight?"
And you can tell it's not bias. It's just laziness. Asking a followup question is just too much bother for them.
--- Ban humanity.
I wish I had mod points. +1 Enlightening
I can only say that, after the American general elections in November, we can hold a civilized conversation on Slashdot that does not immediately degenerate into political squabbling.
--Ohio
... One cannot lie in court... For every "freedom" we grant ourselves we must give up a freedom in cost...
If what your saying had any impact on reality, if you can't lie in court you can't lie outside of court. But we all know that reality dictates that we can and do lie outside of court all the time, even though it's illegal to lie in court. Your theory is flawed.
You can 'grant' freedoms without taking away.
I'll quote from the following article by Uri Avnery. The last sentence is the relevant statement.
Rather, "I can only hope that,"...
"Yahoo certainly has first ammendment rights in the USA, but France isn't part of the US."
:)
that is the point yahoo is company in the US hosted in the US on the internet...should it be the responsibilty of company in the US hosting web services in the US to censor itself to meet the restirictions of a french government....this is entirely the resposiblity of the french government to censor thier own country. If they end up looking like China in the process then all I can do is smile
stendec@gmail.com
...to worry about...you know, like fixing their labor laws that resulted in all those old people dying.
Blar.
Francophobe
Wouldn't that mean I'm afraid of the french? Why would anyone be afraid of the french?
Everyone else here is floating their own ideas for yahoo, with the same expectation- none- that yahoo brass is paying attention.
Pointless yapping is the point of slashdot. So comment with that in mind, jerky.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
because a US court can't issue a ruling that would violate the Constitution.
Even the rights laid out in the US Constitution (and amendments) have limits.
If you don't believe me, make a few death threats at important people.
The original post was unfortunately vague about what's actually going on here so here's my summary (IANAL) seeing as I've actually read the article.
A French court has demanded that Yahoo stop selling pro-Nazi materials and memorabilia *in France* in accordance with French anti-hate laws.
On the point that this is only regarding Yahoo's activities in France a quote from the article:
"In 2000, a French court sided with the groups [suing Yahoo] and found that Yahoo had violated French anti-hate laws when it allowed online auction listings of about 1,000 Nazi-related items. The court ordered Yahoo to face a $13,000-per-day fine if it didn't block access to Nazi objects [*]within[*] France"
And NB: "Later, Yahoo removed a variety of the disputed items only from its French subsidiary, saying it was responding to customers, not the French court orders."
Given that the French democracy voted in these laws it probably makes good business sense to obey them.
Now, Yahoo is based in the US and holds to US values of free-speech as expressed in the 1st amendment.
Presumably the US courts are involved because France is seeking the corporate equivalent of extradition - they want to sue an American company over it's actions in France and they therefore need to go through American channels. This bit is not made very clear in the article.
So by way of analogy if an American company went to France and sold goods that did not meet French safety laws and French courts found that company guilty of disobeying French law I suspect no-one would deny that they had a right to do this even if those standards did not hold in the US.
However, a lot of people - myself included - think those French anti-hate laws are stupid (just like the laws against wearing Muslim shrouds to school).
Because the laws are stupid, and in the website case, unlike the imported goods analogy, it is possible to go on breaking the law as long as the US government backs Yahoo, it is easy to conclude that the US should back Yahoo and the 1st amendment even in a foreign country.
However, this is effectively forcing US laws on other countries and carries the implication that the US (or anyone else) need not respect the sovereignty of another nation if they can get away with it.
This is a very difficult call because on the one hand it means that US websites on democracy etc. could be banned from activity in China because they violate sovereign Chinese laws - though we may not like those laws. On the other hand it means that the US is playing fair with other nations and not forcing it's values on them over the internet.
In the end there is a choice between a situation in which 'lowest common denominator' standards result with a freedom that exists in one country being extended to all over the internet - which is good for free speech and democracy but bad for victim of child-porn rings, slander and so on. On the other hand nations could all agree to present a united front and support foreign rulings for local websites where those websites are made available to foreign customers - this way the law would pretty much stay the same, national sovereignty would be respected and the worst excesses (eg. child porn) could be restrained. But those countries we would like to see a bit free-er wouldn't be.
It's a choice between anarchism and sovereignty which will depend on your politics, but sovereignty is probably where the US courts want to stand so the decision is consistent with what they represent. And at the end of the day, seeing as a united front with the UN lasts about as long as a snowflake in hell it'll probably end up closer to democracy with whatever the majority* of nations can agree on being the case.
*'majority' and therefore 'democracy' must be understood to be adjusted by factors such as the possession of overwhelming military and economic force (and a lunatic Texan in control of them and damn willing to use them).
what the whites did to us was shitty, no doubt...
but compared to most any other invading race at that time, you pick, germans, french, chinese, english, even portugese... it was comparable. that is what tended to happen in that stage of history.
my only problem is that our genetic diversity is now large enough to support ourselves as a distinct race, but this is also happening all over the world in australia, africa, and south america.
but anyways, too many people try to play the victim. how far back do you want to go as far as grudge-holding?
as far as the sterilization in 1970, im not saying i dont believe you, but such things were not widespread past ww2. now before that, i have some amazing stories to tell about my grandparents and before that, but I've ranted enough. We have had 70 years, several generations, to get over it.
Now look at any other 'genocided' culture, jews, slavs, whatever. They've managed to move on. Look to the future, not to the past.
Turtle Mountain Anishinabe (ND), reservation land owning, casino money-getting, on the census as such.
Score
Grandparent: 1
Parent: -1 for being too stupid to understand
"my only problem is that our genetic diversity is now large enough to support ourselves as a distinct race"
should be
"my only problem is that our genetic diversity is not large enough to support ourselves as a distinct race"
because come November, Bush is just embarrassing history
Funny that you say that, because Kerry's embarrasing history is popping up in spades lately- cambodia stories, his purple hearts, his slander of vietnam veterans when he got of his petty 4 months of service, and his pretense at having their backing now, not to mention his twenty years in the senate.
In contrast, the lefties and the press have already milked the few unknowns of Bush's ANG service far past dry.
I'm not a fan of everything Bush has done, but overall I prefer him and his policies to that walking caricture of a politician called 'kerry.' It can only go downhill for him, because stories that will sink Kerry's campaign are now just starting to surface and gain traction, whereas Kerry, the DNC, and moveon.org types have been slinging everything they can at Bush for months now, and have had precious little of it stick.
1) How is the "sale" of nazi items becoming free speech ?
2) What American law do you refer to ? I Am Canadian and an American , There are no law that govern our continent.
Canada
C oureageous
A merican
N oble
A merican
D efender of
A merica
At that's to say nothing of the French journalist who got fired for pointing out that the French press were so incompetently pro-Saddam that the were talking about "terrible" American casualties and "fierce" Iraqi resistence right up until Saddam's statue was toppled.
Do you even know the meaning of the words "terrible" and "fierce"? There's nothing inaccurate in those statements. Even recently there have been terrible casualties and fierce resistance.
or december. Rumor has it that the DNC cry babies, not content they had made a mockery of the electorial process with their selective recounts in Florida in 2000, are already planning lawsuits to contest the outcome of the coming election.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
No it is not about yahoo.fr
Read older articles about the court case, it's clearly about the yahoo.com auction site having objectionable content.
I agree it would be quite hard to defend a situation where an american company had a French site that didn't respect French laws, but that's simply not what's happening here.
I can agree with even all of that. However, I will deny the allusions to moral distinctions between censoring historical facts and not-glorifying them. In the US, we assert the moral principle that ethnic bigotry is wrong, and is prohibited by the 18th amendement to the Constitution. Selling Nazi memorabilia is OK unless it in fact or in principle discriminates against a minority.
What the french do not want is people developing an economy around fascination with Nazi history, which would become a scaffolding for social and political organizing. It is really about the differences between french and US societies. French political pluralism doesn't necessitate protecting minority political opinions and speech the way US homogeneity needs to protect its precious different perspectives. There's always going to be scads of freaks to season the variety of political thought in France. They don't necessarily need Nazis to stir the pot. Americans, however, need Nazis: we need to know for a fact that we haven't become them, because there they are, opposing us. Otherwise we can't be sure, can we?
France has no right to deny Americans the political parity that we crave. If France wants American culture (the Internet, case and point), they can take what we are giving and STFU.
Just to quell any doubts: I hate the Illinois Nazis...
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Calling everyone who speaks harshly of the French government a "Frankophobe" is as bad as calling anyone who criticises the actions of Israel an "anti-semite".
That's partly true, France certainly had economical interests in Iraq and it played a role in the government's decisions.
Now, if you look at what the _people_ wanted in France/Germany/... you'll see that they all refused a US invasion and they didn't refuse it for these economical reasons, they refused it because they considered that it was ethically wrong.
I highly doubt this. Why would anyone contest the outcome of an election that they won?
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
It's not so much that the french are more critical of their government than americans, it's that they like to "vent their spleen" more. Most americans will just say "idiot" and change the channel when they hear of something stupid a politician has done. But a frenchmen will actually leave his house and hunt down a member of the opposition party just so he can start a shouting match.
I struggle to suppress my childish streak and in the end, the adult in me forced me to erase 20 pages of "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" in response to French Law.
But know that I'm still feeling it in my heart.
"it was the Americans"
:
...
... no wonder you got invaded in 2001 and got into a war with Irak over WMD ....
Yes , Canada , you Know
C ourageous
A merican
N oble
A merican
D efender of
A merican
BTW your a fucking Morons , it whas the "ALLY"
who won the war. This Include Free France and its real leader "Charles de Gaulle" you might whant to read about it
Stupid Etats-Unians
"Example: refusal to extradite criminals who might be subject to a death penalty in the US. Moral indignation is the reason why."
Actually, it's nearly impossible to get France to extradite ANYONE to ANYWHERE. The death penalty has little to do with it.
Look. I want to come over to your house. And I want to say "cock sandwich" in front of your wife and kids. Is it wrong for you to forbid me?
What's so bad about Chick-fil-A?
Like it or not, this, along with the wide disparities of copyright law are likely to force the world to come together, at least whereas it applies to the internet.
One can only hope that the US will come out on top regarding free speech, and that someone else will come out will come out on top regarding privacy rights (hopefully not China.)
Hmm. It actually would mean fear or dread of the franks.
Possibly misofranc? Just doesn't sound right.
I have a friend who speaks classical greek, but I hate to ask him, he has a phobia about racism.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
Here is the Appeals Court Opinion (PDF).
Essentially it says that the French court's determination that Yahoo was in violation of French law was not, in itself, reviewable by any US court, but that jurisdiction may be obtained and the First Amendment claim heard once the plaintiffs ask a US District Court to enforce the judgement. The French plaintiffs have thus far declined to do so. Rather than wait around on the plaintiffs, Yahoo decided to ask the District Court to issue a Declaratory Judgement that enforcement of the French order by US officials was unconstitutional, which it did. The Appeals Court determined that the District Court had no jurisdiction to issue such a judgement at this time.
That's what Slashdot is for.
I've got the perfect solution: how about we ban France from the 'net. They can have their own intranet, run any way they like, and we are left the heck alone.
Was it love of the Iraqi people that caused the US to go to war? or was it the WMD? And if it was the love, where was it when they were dropping cluster bombs?
oh yeah I forget, who armed Iraq?
It is not even conceivable that the French (and MOST other US ALLIES) looked at the evidence for going to war, weighed it and it came up short? I mean it was proven that the intelligence that "caused" the US to go to war to "protect itself" was faulty.
Maybe they just couldn't bring themselves to sending their countrymen to die, and condemn Iraqi's to become "collateral damage" that doesn't even get an official body count.
But yeah, it could've been all about the money, why not that's what it's all about there in the US, right? Maybe they asked for a cut and were told to go fuck themselves with a baguette.
are you for fucking real? are the Halliburton stories reported by Fox or CNN? Nice troll. when is the last time you read a french newspaper?
OK, so where can I legally buy my Cuban cigars in the US ?
Nazis can't buy stuff in France and Smokers can't buy Cuban cigars in the US. Same difference. The difference.
If I was a foreign company trading with Cuba, I would also end up with the US Feds giving me sh*t as well. If I was a US citizen I would be even more f*cked.
France dont like Nazis and US don't like Cubans. Same difference.
...because of the rhetoric they were fed by their governments, which had an economic interest in ignoring the UN resolution dictating the terms of Hussein's surrender. The same governments that were profiting from the TRUELY ethically wrong deals that they had been making for 10 years.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
The right to life is a constitutional right in france, so they don't extradite to the US.
The right for free hate speech is a constitutional right in the US, so they shouldn't don't care about nazi speech. If they do, well, that's your problem.
At that's to say nothing of the French journalist who got fired for pointing out that the French press were so incompetently pro-Saddam that the were talking about "terrible" American casualties and "fierce" Iraqi resistence right up until Saddam's statue was toppled.
Reference please. Never heard of that.Moreover, I'm still waiting for a Fox journalist to say that its employer is not "Fair and unbalanced"... If one did, he would be fired instantly.
So, for your point to be of some weight, you would have, at least, to show that the governement is responsible for that.
Otherwise, this is business as usual. Do not disagree with your boss.
you might think of the French as a tolerant people but you'd be mistaken.
I like that, that's a great example of tolerance right there...not at all generalising on an entire country based on isolated incidents.
I'm hungry, I'd like some freedom fries...
You can't take the sky from me...
as a member of the EU, france must not extradite anyone who could become a subject of capital punishment.
The solution to this problem for Yahoo is obvious. Forget ACLU backed ligitation. Invade France and liberate the French people from it's oppressive government. Couple bucks to the Bushes ought to do it.
Scenario: France decides to block all traffic from www.yahoo.com and related (www.yahoo.fr, etc...)
I am not intimately familiar with the structure of the "internet", but it seems unlikely that France would be able to shut Yahoo! off from only France's citizens. The Chinese government has tried to shut off the internet in China, but if I am not mistaken, they have not had great success. I would think that accomplishing this would require literally cutting the lines.
Despite my reservations for supporting the trafficing of Nazi paraphenalia (for hate related purposes only), I am once again pleased to see so many Americans stand behind the rights we have shed our blood for, even when the outcome of those rights is obviously unpopular.
Please explain how refusing to hand a prisoner over to those you personally consider to use cruel methods, is dictating any law whatsoever.
Bonus points if you know which country tries to dictate others' laws the most at this point in history.
A gold star if you can remember which country's government tried to pressure the EU to ignore its own antitrust laws for our friends at MicroShaft.
People here turn into idiots when someone mentions the french, why is that?
(by the way, I agree with your decision, just not the rest of the bullshit)
This has been more true recently than historically. After 9/11, a lot of Americans started feeling like "everyone hates us". They hadn't honestly considered this possibility before, I think, for the most part, just as most French aren't aware to what extent they're disliked.
Anyway, after that, being self-critical was lumped in with anti-Americanism. People were fed up with being criticized, and so were less supportive of the practice, even by members of their own society.
And yes, I think it's a damn shame. But it's getting better, I think. Bush may not win; but had the elections been a year ago, he would have, without a doubt.
That's not true and that's the big difference with USA.
In Europe, the newspapers & TV were reporting BOTH views : the US/UK view, and the european(french/swiss/german/....) one, something which was sorely lacking in USA.
Switzerland for example had very little financial interest in Iraq, yet >90% of the people opposed the war.
If you look at the UK and Spain, where the government supported the war, the people also were opposed to the war, the UK population only started supporting the war _after_ it started, because they supported the troops.
Keep in mind that in most of Europe, people receive the BBC, CNN and often NBC Europe also and most people understand english, yet, they were all opposed to the war. Me, I'm in USA since 4 years, and like many people in this country I also opposed it, for the same reason as the people in Europe, yet, I heard both points of view.
It's not a matter of brainwashing, the media in Europe is way too diverse for that, partly because the countries are smaller than USA and thus you always get media from outside the country, it's sadly not the same in USA, very few media give enough time to dissenting opinions from outside USA.
on the subject. Personally I think that politics will stifle growth of computer related technology is many countries, disagreeing with the Gorniak Hypotheses.
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
"previously mistreated peoples carry grudges through many generations and turn those grudges into violent vindication"
i understand that.
Chippewas and Dakota/Lakota are still beating each up and killing each ohter to this day.
Im saying that the genocided cultures such as the jews and south africans and slavs are in a much better position than they were some years ago. native americans also...
they are no longer the oppressed. while in some cases the scales have turned, the slavs, jews, chinese, indians etc are hardly living in peace... but they're not being systematically killed, anymore.
The Nazi's were beaten, over half a century ago.
Do you think the irony of forcing a dictatorship like law about Nazi paraphenala is lost on them?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The act of criminalizing any idea ought to, all other things being equal, make that idea more appealing to thoughtful people. Criminalizing ideas is wrong, and one ought to make a stand for criminalized ideas whenever possible.
Of course, most reasonable people do not support Nazi ideas even where they're criminalized. But in general, criminalizing ideas makes them more attractive to those of us who side with unpopular sentiment against oppressive government.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The US press tilts in various directions, depending on which outlet you look at, but generally they're less tabloidish and less prone to gross misrepresentations than many European outlets. The BBC is a good news source in Europe, and so are some of the German papers, but there's a whole host of papers in the UK, France, Spain, and especially Greece and Italy, that are absolute trash. A Greek paper a few years ago even reported that Bush's daughters were caught with "drugs", when what they were caught with was underage drinking, something that's actually legal in Greece.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Yes, they're lazy. That's not all though.
The laziness itself lends an advantage to modern Republicans,
who often prescribe ridiculously simple solutions to complex problems;
witness the deal with Gore. The media said he was boring. Awww, he's talking about real policy.
But, of course, the ownership (and surely editorial control) of most major media
by people like Rupert Murdoch and Reverend Sun Myung Moon,
are doing a number on the integrity, quality, and honesty of US media.
The french press was pro-Iraqi, not pro-Saddam. No one in their right mind would be pro-Saddam. But look at what's going on now. Honestly ask yourself: which is better?
Before Iraqis were living in a sort of limbo state (partially as a result of U.N. sanctions and of Saddam's brutal regime). Maybe eventually, over a few decades, with U.S. and other assistance, they would have been able to overthrow Saddam's repressive regime and institute their own form of government. (Though this is rather strange to consider; how can a generation of peoples who have been exposed to U.S. backed dictators (yes we did indeed support Saddam during the 80's, against Iran) suddenly create a form of government that wasn't a dictatorship? Here we see the need for the U.N.....) At any rate. That is all possibilities in the past. We have shattered that.
Now their life is a literal hell. It's sad, but not everything in the world can have a pretty flowery and springtime happy ending.
This is all pretty funny. If the argument is that Yahoo is a US company, and the French laws shouldn't apply, think about the effects of the rest of the countries' e-commerce firms on the US.
Should Dutch companies be allowed to ship pot to the US because in Holland that's allowed?
Should Canadian e-commerce pharmacies be allowed to ship cheaper medical drugs to the US? The US isn't very happy about that right now...
ends when all the people I don't like are dead.
Don't French laws only apply to sites not just registered under the .fr domain but also physically located in France?
This reminds me of an episode of Family guy where Stewie and Brian get stuck in Arabia and then go through Germany to get back home. On a tour bus Biran notices that there is almost no documented history during WII in Germany and questions it. The German just denies it happenening. History, be it objectable in moral contact is still history and should be carefully observed and studied rather than censored. What are the European goverments thinking? They are acting just like the Roman-Catholic Church, you know that Church no one really liked and rebelled against.
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
I'm so glad CNN and Fox News aren't in the hands of those dirty commies, so we always get FAIR AND BALANCED reporting from the US press.
Good point, but remember that what the parent poster was trying to point out is that, because of speech laws, france lacks a free press. In the US, our major media outlets may be controlled by relatively conservative types, but other sources can still report the truth. This is unlike France, where criticizing the president is illegal(According to the parent).
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
If Denis Halliday had received his fair share of press in the US when he resigned from administering that program, I could be convinced you had a point there. The whole topic was never adequately reported in the US press, even after years of activists trying to get issues to their attention.
There's been so much propaganda about Iraq and OFF that we sometimes forget that OFF was itself a scandal, a thinly veil for genocide. Enforced nominally by the UN, it was the UK and US that refused to lift the embargo, precipitating the deaths of over a million Iraqis (according to UN agencies). OFF was always inadequate. After Halliday quit in protest, his GERMAN successor also quit... also mostly unreported in the US press, although you can be sure the Europeans paid a bit more attention.
As some would rather not let you know why some Iraqis so hate your soldiers, it's easier to distract you with a petty scandal. Your media has also told you blatant lies - e.g. telling you Saddam Hussein expelled inspectors out while it was the UN that called them out before a US attack. Your media had reported the facts correctly when this happened in 1998, but in 2002 they couldn't be bothered to check their own damned archives.
The US is a media island. You've been told so many lies that you are willing to march to the drums of war. And when told France's media is servile and heavily censored, you swallow it whole because you've never set foot in a French newsstand. Had you done so, and had you been able to read it, you wouldd have seen more diversity of opinion then you thought could exist. I'll not count the number of marxist splinter groups and right-wing nutjobs, never mind for a second the several Greens and the Hunting, Fishing, Nature and Tradition weirdos- just the diversity of mainstream papers would kick the ass out of your newstainment sources.
And yes, I also have French citizenship, as well as Canadian, so I know I'm doubly suspect to your brand of trollish yanks. But I have to tell you your complaints about our media are going to fall on deaf ears until you manage to get respectable media yourselves.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
12% of the population of France is muslim. 15% of the population of France admit to being anti-semitic. Who do you think is more dangerous a bunch of young skin heads that talk big and drink too much. Or a bunch of unemployeed, gettoized, un-assimilated "north africans" who pray 5 times a day and who's religion tells them to wipe out the unbelivers? Unbelivers being muslims not of there sect, infidels, jews, gays and, christians. With Jews being high on their list. There are only about 600,000 Jews in France which has a population of 60 million 5 million of them being musilm. I don't think neo-nazis are the problem I think religious intolerance by islam is. France has every right to determin what is on web site hoseted on their territory. But It can't dictate what is on servers in the US. It has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. France has no sovereign power over the US.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
"When people criticize Zionists they mean Jews, you are talking anti-Semitism." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. at Harvard University, 1968
who armed Iraq?
The man who owns a rabid dog should be the first to shoot him.
That's a good question. Let's ponder this.
Iraq's tanks were made primarily in a place named Chelyabinsk. Let me suggest something: That is not a General Motors facility.
Iraq's fighter aircraft were a mixture of MiGs and Mirages. One made by Russia. The other, France. (What, France may have sold weapons to someone who shouldn't have had them? Zut alors!)
Iraq's small arms were largely AK-pattern rifles. Made in a dozen countries, but not by Colt or Bushmaster or Olympic Arms. Nor by any other US maker.
So, who armed Hussein? Someone who makes Russian tanks and French aircraft. You do the math.
pussy?
Actually there's nothing wrong with Fox or other news sources being partisan. That's what you'd expect to get in a free country -- various diverging biases, and the chance to decide for yourself who's right. It's when the press is partisan because it's been ordered to be (or else), that you have a problem.
pringles?
Happily banning "bad" language and sexual content from everywhere, but fighting hard for Nazi hate propaganda to be protected by freedom of speech.
The same is seen on US TV. It seems to be ok to slaughter dozens of people, but be "Oh God" if you can see a nipple.
I, personally, do not believe that Nazi propaganda deserves this protection.
That said, of course it is rediculous to subject internet sites to all laws of every country that can access them. That would make almost every site illegal as you probably can always find a country in which the content is illegal.
If the french do not like the content, why don't *they* block it, or enforce it through *their* internet providers?!
It's legal for Dutch businesses to advertise marijuana on websites accessible from the States. It's legal for Dutch businesses to sell marijuana to Dutch citizens. It's illegal for them to sell it to U.S. citizens (I think?).
Now the sticky part, because this relates to Yahoo: is it illegal for a site to effectively provide a communication channel through which U.S. citizens may (illegaly) purchase marijuana from a Dutch business? I realize the roles are reversed here, but it's really this distinction that matters. It's fairly obvious that attempting to send material that is illegal in a country to that country is going to get you in trouble with them. But is Yahoo really selling the stuff in the first place?
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Please mod parent Funny!! Or Naive.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
Who says it is actually Mods? I think it's editiors more often than not. They can mod something down as many times as they want with no penalty and you will never know. They can also ban you from mod points and you will never know. There is no freedom of expression here even for non-trollish, non-flamebait posts. You are not allowed to insult the editors moral or political sensibilities even if they are incorrect and you are correct.
sorry, my words should've been chosen with more care.
The US may not have been the ones supply the arms through direct sales, but do a search for "BNL", the US *did* provide Iraq with plenty of cash.
By no means are those who sold so many weapons to a mad man, innocent. They deserved to be shamed as well.
Let just not forget the US destroyed a mad man they supported (and helped build up), knowing full well of the evils he perpetrated against other nations as well as his own people.
We're talking about the same lame country that allowed 15,000+ people die because they thought air conditioning wasn't a good idea. Viva La Stupidity!
If what you were saying had any basis in reality, you might be onto something here. Fortunately, you have two unrelated statements linked:
> if you can't lie in court you can't lie outside of court".
That's the key to your argument, and the flaw. You've forgotten that you take an oath to tell the truth in court. That oath applies only to the testimony you present, it does not apply outside of the courtroom.
> You can 'grant' freedoms without taking away.
Demonstrate this in a way that proves that the grandparent's demonstration is inaccurate, or admit that you're wrong. (That you are wrong does not mean that it is impossible to grant freedoms without taking away, it merely proves that your statement was based on flawed evidence.)
If you look at ratings for news Fox wins hands down. That is why Bush will win in November. Most people tune to Fox for news. If you feel like weeping go ahead. Smart people don't read their own press releases or campaign propaganda.
"In Europe, the newspapers & TV were reporting BOTH views : the US/UK view, and the european(french/swiss/german/....) one, something which was sorely lacking in USA"
Says swissmonkey and thus is it true.
"very few media give enough time to dissenting opinions from outside USA."
Diverse ?
You mean left, more to the left and communists.
That is EU media.
Fucking diverse my ass.
You are so fucking diverse than in fact you just admited that everyone over there agreed that war was wrong.
Yet in this "not so diverse" US there was a huge debate regarding merits of this action with multiple points of view being discussed.
"It's not a matter of brainwashing, "
Ah, it is matter of Europeans being simply intelectually more capable of understanding longterms of US policy.
Thank you for your elitism.
What the fuck are you doing in my country then ?
Go fuck yourself.
Ah fucking noble French.
I bet fucking grass is even greener over there and everyone gets up in the morning with the solemn promise to leave the world a better place at the end of the day.
Well, I got news for you.
We , over here, did not consider this war morally wrong and thus we will remain in a very "friendly disagreement" about this issue.
PS.
I heard an oldtimer recently say something like " My father fought for their freedom, I spent years there protecting their freedom and sure like hell I will make sure that my son won't make that mistake again."
Rest assured, it was meant to be funny. It would be funny (or scary) if someone modded it Insightful. :-)
'Nuff said.
Yahoo could just invade France. That'd solve the problem in about 24 hours and they could auction off bits of the country on their web site. Everyone wins!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You are so fucking diverse than in fact you just admited that everyone over there agreed that war was wrong.
No, 15% of the people disagreed.
Yet in this "not so diverse" US there was a huge debate regarding merits of this action with multiple points of view being discussed.
Huge debate among whom ? The mainstream media didn't push at all the dissenting opinion, they had to go through street protests to be heard and the opposing side kept calling them "unpatriotic", you call that a debate ?
Ah, it is matter of Europeans being simply intelectually more capable of understanding longterms of US policy.
No, it's a matter of Europe having more open media outlets
What the fuck are you doing in my country then ?
Ask your fellow citizens, they asked me to come help them and pay me quite a lot for it.
Go fuck yourself.
I thought about it, but then my girlfriend proposed to help.
Bad luck I'm not french.
I bet fucking grass is even greener over there and everyone gets up in the morning with the solemn promise to leave the world a better place at the end of the day.
Nope, they just consider that you're not allowed to invade another country without a valid reason, something the US government doesn't understand it seems.
As for this oldtimer fighting for their freedom, yep he did, like the french helped you get your independance.
Crap I posted that. I got my preferences set to post AC. Yes I do murder english quite well. BFD.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
Yeah, for instance many countries are pissed that France let Henry Kissinger get away.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
They do teach you history in Europe, but that's not quite the problem. In countries where primary sources of information such as Mein Kampf are illegal people are forced to reach conclusions from looking at secondary sources.
While there's no denying that Hitler was a villain, it is dangerous to rely on pre-digested analyses of Nazi philosophy. How will you guard yourselves against convincing arguments for twisted policies if all you know is that people like Hitler are worthy of contempt?
You shouldn't worry about the kinds of attitudes that are easily identified as prejudiced; worry instead about those prejudiced attitudes that seem [i]prima facie[/i] benign. The words "know your enemy" are among the wisest words ever spoken.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
You are basically advocating that anything that makes money for a company is a good thing. Well, contract murders are a lucrative business (thought, granted illegal), but I can't see Yahoo entering that particular segment of the market...
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
I may be wrong, but if Yahoo.fr is hosting or distributing content that originates within the borders of France, why don't the French go after the French originators instead of Yahoo?
If the content is not originating in France, Yahoo is not the originator nor the distributor in the conventional sense, because the content is coming into France via external data links. Yahoo is merely a "conduit" like a phone line. If someone calls up a Frenchman on the phone from England and yells hate speech, do the French think the English OR French phone services must be shut down or try to control the content?
Not to mention the fact that there is no such thing as "hate speech" except by government fiat.
It seems to me the French government is merely being stupid like most governments.
Of course, the US is nearly in the same state. Try using the term "nigger" on any public media and see what happens - even if the context is perfectly legitimate.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
To a typical slashdotter this news reads:
.com means *nothing*).
Beware! French governement revokes freedom of speech of USA citizens.
To people who use their brain:
French government enforces local laws on companies conducting commerce in France.
If Yahoo markets itself to french citizens and conducts commerce with french citizens (to buy nazi related material), yahoo, *by choice* is subjecting itself to the law of France.
What would you have otherwise? Yahoo be immune from litigation in all countries bar the USA just because their HQ is in the US? Wake up, if you choose to do business in a country you are subject to the law of that country (having a website end in
But hey if you are too stupid to think, I have a large tower with great views situated in prime real-estate in the middle of Paris for sale...
I'm so glad CNN and Fox News aren't in the hands of those dirty commies, so we always get FAIR AND BALANCED reporting from the US press.
Why is the parent modded "funny"? It should be "insightful".
Hussein put himself into power. He got support from lots of people during the Iraq vs Iran war. Notable was the US. Get your facts stright. The US did not put Saddam Hussein into power.
The clusterfuck that is the middle east had it's borders set by Europe not the United States. Like much of Africas borders all which were set by Europe. Most of the messes in the world can be laid at the feet of Europe. A Europe that winges about all these problems but doesn't do crap to solve them.
Nobody thinks they're biased. They think they're right, and the other guys are wrong. Maybe they'd admit to piling on the emphasis, to counter the blatantly biased slant of their opposition. But that doesn't make them propagandists, they're just putting their side of the argument.
When reasonable opinions diverge, it's up to the listeners to choose whom to believe.
Bullshit. He said "pathetic nanny state" which goes beyond appreciating the government alone.
Bad analogy either: as much as francophobe relates to anything or anyone french, there's more to Israel than judaism, whether criticizing or approving.
An enlightened court. The reasoning really is simple: If they claim that US law can hit you everywhere, like in the DVD case, where dozens of non-americans were sued, then quid pro quo and french laws apply to the US.
Of course, the other solution (every country's laws apply in that country and nowhere else) would make more sense, but there are these darn precedents and the US desire to rule the world...
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Even if there's the law, during the last presidential campaign, that didn't stop a very popular caricatural (?) show to design the actual president as "SuperMenteur" ("SuperLiar"). Try to do that now in the states ;)
And it didn't stop either all the scandals that led to that. In fact, especially for the Elf bribery, at least one past influent member of the government got judged.
#include "coucou.h"
Why is it so horrible to be forced to cover your hair? Is it worse than be forced to cover your breasts?
By the way, I do not respect governments that force anyone to cover any part of his/hers body. That includes (almost?) every single government on Earth.
As a dumb french, i should post as an anonymous coward...
FYI, french press is 0wned at 80% by two french defense groups (Lagardere-Matra and Dassault), and these two companies are not well-known for socialists tendencies.
And yes, L'humanite, the only general communist newspaper remaining in France (in the world?) has received an increase in its capital as a gift from Arnaud Lagardere, the boss of Matra. You know why?
For "the freedom and independence of speech".
Yes, that's true.
-ben (bfremon (at) yahoo . fr
"If it were, they would surely capitulate instantenously."
You know, writing a phrase like this basically says "Yes, I buy into the anti-French propaganda. Yes, I'm amused by jingoism thinly clothed in humour."
This whole "French surrendering" thing really isn't improving European perceptions of Americans...
...how much crap which basicly can be summed up as "The French laws are stupid and they shouldn't enforce them".
.us site, I sold nothing but FDA-approved drugs. In the .com (not US specific) site, I was selling everything and anything legal under the laws of my HQ country. Shipping to the destination of your choice. You think my US presence wouldn't get sued? You think my US assets wouldn't get ceased? The US is perfectly able and willing to do just what France is doing. Except that it is the French doing it to you, not the other way around.
The US is certainly not against prosecuting international companies with an US presence or even those without an US presence. For example De Beers, convicted in an US anti-trust suit despite having no US presence. Thus, no funds to cease which is really the difference here.
Let us, for the sake of argument say I was running a drug company, headquartered in a foreign nation. In the
Appealing a French case in US court? If you think that's a good idea, just wait until the French court appeals the US case. If you find that to be a "violation of your sovereignty", maybe you'll understand why the French would think the same.
Following the same principles as the De Beers case, yahoo.com could be sued in France even if there was no yahoo.fr. It's just that the French courts actually have something to collect. Don't like it? Well they're behaving like US courts. We don't like that either.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I mean , the skarlov russian guy (spelling?) which cracked some reader format (yeah I have a bad memory) and was arrested, well this is the same type of story. Except that it wasn't nazi mamorabelia offered from the USA into france, it was a cracked reader offered from russia into USA. Where is the difference ? As far as I remmember the law in USA is that it does not matter that your firm is not in the USA, what matter is that you have economic interrest and client in the USA. Why should the things be different in EU ? Because it tickle badly your "free speech" nerve ? Well sorry, but what is good for the one is good for everybody. Accept it.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
freedom os speech yes, thought polluting bile no.
It's not really censorship, it's more anti generic defamation laws. Most of any hate speech is a form of defamation towards a minority (jews, blacks, arabs, homosexuals, whatever...).
I agree that prohibiting people to buy/sell nazi objects (as in the France V.S. Ebay case) does not fall into this category, but blocking nazi speech is more of an antidefamation act than of censorship.
Think about it.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
"My father fought for their freedom, I spent years there protecting their freedom and sure like hell I will make sure that my son won't make that mistake again."
Hey, it seems like the US populout have pretty much come to the same decision regarding their own freedom!
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
It's no "the Frenchs" or the french government who are attacking yahoo, it's in fact severall french human rights groups such as LICRA (Internationl leage against racism and anti-semitism), UEJF (Union of french jew students) or MRAP (Movement against Racism anf for friendship between peoples), who have to tidings to the french government and are suing in no other name but their own.
act, thre's a law in France making it a crime to "attack the character of the French President."
AFAIR, this law was repelled years ago.
That, combined with communist control of many of the French journalist's unions, means that many stories (such as all the members of the French government, past and present, who had their hands in the ELF bribery scandal, or, for that matter, the UN Oil-for-food scandel) never get adequately reported in the French press.
That, unfortunately, is completely true, and in fact communist workers unions have a lot more power than most people think. They hold an active minority in virtually every public service, including the Police and power distribution. They even had one of their men as Prime Minister not that long ago ! I half-jokingly call France "The Sovietic Republic of France" because of this. Sometimes that's "Ex-Sovietic Republic of France", though, because more and more people realize what's happening behind the political scene.
There is no real consensus between ALL french journalists, though, as proven by the existence of such publications.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
According to the RSF organization, France is ranking 26th on the world's classment of freedom of press, while the US are 31st.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
The French court is now trying to force them to take it down on their other sites as well
The French court doesn't want Yahoo to "take down" anything.
The French court simply wants Yahoo to block French users from their auction sites, or at least
make a credible attempt at that. That's controversial enough, no need to make it look even worse.
Look here.
Thomas Miconi
On the labels of US music CDs.
What if they decide using Linux is 'hate speech against capitalism'?
It's very unlikely, but still. I have no idea what you do with your time. You could be a Mason and have a secret handshake. You could be a goth and like to pretend to be a vampire. Whatever - the point is that your speech should be protected even if it IS 'hate speech', which is something the US doesn't recognize, because the authors of our Constitution correctly divined that someday, someone would use that capability to outlaw speech they didn't like, which is oppressive.
Just like this French law is. The French can have whatever laws they like but i'll be damned if an American firm has to abide by them when conducting operations on US soil.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Who gives a damn about the fuckin' Euro perception of America? Especially the French? And the French are sisys. yes, they have some good special ops and such, but put them in a big slugfest with another army of any size at all and my dollar is on the other guy. We all know the popular Google-bomb of "french military victories." The French as well as, IMHO, most other European countries (not to be confused with individual citizens which can be as strong as any other man on the planet) are notorious for being gun shy, especially in today's modern age. Germans.. had their asses handed to them in both World Wars (not to say that the Nazi's couldn't have won - Hitler, you meddeling fool!).. French.. see above.. Spanish.. wasn't their last war a civil war, one which was won with German assistance? Italians go to war? No way!
now, Norway and Swedeen seem to have a pretty good defense force but couldnt handle a full-scale war, IMO. America doesn't like to put up with shit. We don't withdraw troops from Iraq 'cause a few of our citizens were killed by a car bomb. We have peoples' heads chopped off and we just get pissed.
man.. where was I going wiht this incessant rant?!
What is your penile percentile?
"Or are you seriously saying that the French government ought to be subject to American laws and values?"
Yeah.
Because the French were essentially collaboratists with the Nazis in WW2.
Now they say you shouldn't talk about it. It "troubles" them.
Good. Maybe it will force them to reassess themselves, act a little less snooty, improve their behavior, and act in a manner more befitting a country largely irrelevant to the world today.
I know that hurts, but its true.
Oh. And maybe the women will shave their armpits, too.
"Apparently, however, you are willing to stomp on the freedom of foreign powers to govern themselves as they see fit."
I'm sure you feel the same about Israel too. Oh, that's different.
Hey, I'm inconsistent too. But at least I admit it. You act as if you are holding the world in balance, and the only thing wrong is that the US has free speech and won't do anything about it.
Puhleese. Just stick you head in a bucket of water. It will benefit us both.
"You aren't allowed to criticise your President in front of him."
Where did you read this? Its simply incorrect.
"The French aren't allowed to promote Nazism. Why is it so hard for you Americans to understand this"
No, you aren't allowed to *talk* about Nazi's in France. And its primarily because the french collaborated with the Nazi's in WW2, and they don't want to talk about it.
France ought to drop this, because if they pursue, free speech is going to bury the french government alive.
"and the more he talks the better he does"
How can that be? How can you reconcile the fact that good people reject evil things, facism is evil, and the french embrace facism.
What its says is that true to their history, the french have embraced facism.
What's more, the French don't seen to have the ability to come up with ideas more appealing than facism.
And then you wonder why the US continuously makes fun fo the French? It hardly seems like a civilized country.
Here's the key point right here:
By contrast, a Nazi or Facist candidate in the United States couldn't get elected dogcatcher of the smallest town in the US, if he ran on a Nazi/Facist platform. AND THE US HAS NO LAWS PROHIBITING ANY KIND OF POLITICAL SPEECH.
The lesson is CLEAR here. Its too bad you and most of the french refuse to see it. Banning hate speech only fosters it, because it forces everybody to believe there is no dissent, and allows evil to spread without challenge.
The US *gets* it, France doesn't. Why is this so hard for you to follow?
Actually France does extradite but under the garantee that death penalty won't be required against the suspect, such garantee beeing given everytime ( and applied ). May I add that in 1948, United States signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which prohibit death penalty (Article 3). But wait... there's still using death penalty like China and Cuba, North Korea et al. But... they signed the UDOHR right ? Doesn't it mean they should apply it ?
\u262D = \u5350
I gotta give you that score, good comparison.
./ moderation system really shows its limits when the topic is France. Truly insightful posts such as this should not be modded at the same level than plain morons claiming historical absurdities.
As much as I support free speech, and stand up for our rights here, the French don't have to honor our laws inside their borders. ( no more then us here in the USSA have to honor theirs )
They ARE a different sovereign country remember...
Besides that, our government has pretty much gutted our bill of rights as of late... free speech is an illusion at the moment I'm afraid.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"yahoo isn't run by French people. If it were, they would surely capitulate instantenously."
:)
Yeah, like their capitulation over the imbecilic decision to invade Iraq
And now we're being condemned for destroying that madman.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
To address the actual point, most native american cultures didn't have the cultural concept of "owning" land like european settlers did. Their culture didn't regard land as property to be owned as we do today. So you can't say they stole it. Native americans pretty much operated under a system of "If you were on it first, it was yours to use until you leave."
This doesn't excuse the of the truly awful treatment native americans were given on many occasions, but you can't say that they "owned" all of present day north america and that the european settlers stole it from them.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
>man.. where was I going wiht this incessant rant?!
Back to the home for the criminally insane bigots?
no taxation without representation!
You're not being condemned for destroying a madman, but for going to war on false pretenses. Almost 1000 American's have died, and untold thousands of Iraqis, based on false information.
Should the world rejoice at that fact? I think not.
Q:Why are the boulevards in Paris lined with trees?
A:So the Germans can march in the shade!
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Freedom of opinion is absolut. Regardless of law.
Freedom of expression is not.
There is a confusion about the French law. It can *not* attack freedom of opinion whatsoever. But the expression (speach) of it can indeed be ruled. An example of speach limitation are anti-slandering law. You can think something but you are not allowed to say it. This is active law in US as well.
So please, no talk about a pseudo-petty-french-us-fight. This is not the point at all. This is not interesting. (This last statement is not an attempt to attack Freedom Of Speach... :-)
i hate france, so no matter what else, fuck them. But, Yahoo sucks too.
I don't see the auctions as the issue. The general rule is "when someone's kicking you in the head, don't look to see what color of shoe they're wearing". Don't focus on Yahoo or Ebay; look at your own society.
What's got the skin-heads all stirred up? Address the issues with the skin-head/Neo-Nazis, and you'll address the auction content as well.
Who gives a damn about the fuckin' Euro perception of America?
Right on. As if winning an international popularity contest was the most important thing for the US to be doing, or as if we could ever win such a contest under any circumstance.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
No reporter ever asks something like, "Do you really think a new 75 cent a gallon gas tax even approaces the outer reaches of coherent sanity at this point in time, and have you considered how much revenue it will actually bring in when the California economy basically evaporates overnight?"
I don't that is the place of a reporter to do. At least not apart from opinion pieces in newspapers. I read newspapers and watch news programs to get the unbiased facts. If the reporter wants to cover people expressing their dissenting views, I'm all for that. Granted, the extent of which the news covers these criticisms shows their own bias. It's not a perfect system but I prefer news that provides the straight unbiased facts on both sides of the issues, not news that tries to make me come to their conclusion.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
Notice their inability to actually do anything about our decision to invade Iraq, making their verbal obstructionism completely and utterly pointless.
It seems that the noise 'old europe' makes about any particular issue is inversly proportional to their ability to do anything.
This ruling will be great. I can't wait to China to sue a website that promotes capitalism and/or democracy!
For that matter, it doesn't say anyone has any generic rights to free speech even in the USA, when it's not an act of the US government restricting it.
It always amazes me that the people most proud of their free speech, are the ones who have no fscking clue what it means. Whenever you see some idiot being an asshole or troll on a forum, MUD, or whatever else, chances are good they'll scream about their freedom of speech right when they get banned.
Too bad for them that it doesn't apply there, but apparently noone told them what that right actually means.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
We went to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Pure and simple. He was a threat that we were able to remove, but the "leading" nations of Europe wanted him to remain in power. The "anti-war" movement is being used by these governments for their own purposes. There was no "anti-war" protest against NATO and US involvement in the Yugoslavia mess, and it was perfectly all right for US soldiers to bomb Serbian civilians, and for our soldiers to die.
The double standard is sickening, and many of us don't care for it anymore. If the US sees a need to act in our self-interest, we're going to do so, especially if it involves threats to the safety and lives of our citizens.
If you want to resent us for being selfish, then enjoy your hypocrisy.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
People here turn into idiots when someone mentions the french, why is that?
Because Americans
1. Don't respect the french, as they capitulated to hitler comparitively easily, and lost rapidly in WW1 as well.
2. Don't like the french for their obstructionism of our agenda in Iraq, made worse when it became evident that the obstructionism was just to protect lucrative & crooked oil deals.
3. Are annoyed that france's policy decisions seem to be consistently based on 'Let's do the opposite of whatever the US wants'
That's a list that should get you started. I'm sure people could add more to it.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
That's actually the real problem... the mingling and hobnobbing of the media with those they are supposed to be covering.
I want unbiased facts, too. The problem is I get very few facts at all because the reporters never dig! I've lost count of the number of times I have watched a press conferecne and wished I could dive into the screen and ask some questions of my own. These so called pro reporters are rarely any better than the vapid, stupid bint who askeed Clinton "boxers or briefs".
--- Ban humanity.
Yes, but there is nothing lazier than an ideologue, which is what you are. As far as I care, Gore AND Murdoch could jump into a wood chipper together and I wouldn't even blink.
--- Ban humanity.
No, you went to war to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction which you believed Iraq was building, which presented an imminent threat to the U.S. and its interests. This was the basis for Bush's 'pre-emptive strike' doctrine: "they're going to hit us, so we need to hit them first". It is only since the invasion failed to reveal any WMDs, that the reason for the war was 'backported' to being about regime change. At least it's slightly more convincing than "the war on terrorism". However, you lose on both counts. Sorry.
Now...back to that massive and chronic trade deficit, a 10-year long period of flaccid economic performance that you can't really seem to shake off, substantially increased competition in all areas from emerging economies like China and India, and your international reputation in tatters. Shall we give you...hmm...maybe another 20 to 30 years at the top? Let's be generous...40 years. Within most of our lifetimes though, we will see the end of the U.S. as a superpower. Enjoy being a bunch of arrogant cunts while it lasts. The payback is going to be awful.
I've always been of the opinion that it isn't the job of outlets like CNN to be critical. It is the job of those outlets to present the cut and dry facts and let me come to my own opinion. If I want opinion mixed with my news, you should go read the Nation or National Review (depending on one's political affiliation)
I remember going to Britain and seeing local reporters always shooting off their personal spin on the story and I didn't like it. The only thing I could compare it with is Fox News, which (in my mind) unfortunately is the direction that American media is heading.
And the Americans did? Give me a break.
That is so wrong. Factually correct, but absurd.
The Wired article says "people in France" - what if other nationalities are visiting France and attempt to use a web browser there? "Oh, look honey, the French can't see the whole intarweb." It will lead to proxies for users, then I suppose these groups will attempt to shut the proxies down or have them filtered too...
If it is "French users", then they could be located anywhere in the world and Yahoo has to block them?! Sounds like a DNA sample keyed to an ID record with Nationality defined...
What was "reasonable" again?
8-PP
No. We went to war to remove Saddam. Period. WMDs or no WMDs, Saddam was not going to be in power and not going to be a continuing threat to anyone. You can attempt to paint it any other way you want, but the fact remains, we went in to remove him, against the wishes of our "betters" in Europe who were quite happy to buy his oil and sell him weapons.
In the "Blood for Oil" exchange, Europe better look to see how clean their hands are of the blood of Iraqi civilians.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Yeah, their gonna use their first amendment right to free speach IN FRANCE....wonder if there is anything wrong with this...?
If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
Like any European country, non-EU ones included, France is opposed to the death penalty. This means that they have a moral obligation to not hand over anyone so you can kill them. Otherwise, they would be hypocrites (sure, dig something up). They will, however, let you have your prisoner after their courts/police have determined that he is most likely guilty, and you have signed an agreement not to kill him, should he be found guilty at a fair trial. How is this a problem?
Well I can see your point that it's "Pure and Simple", once the facts are taken away. But I can't help remember the words clear and present danger used to describe Iraq. If it was to remove him from power, why then was the justification to congress that there was this imaginary threat?
You only assume there was no one against the bombs perpetrated by Nato. Just because it wasn't on CNN or FOX, or whatever, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
I would hope you can see the danger of a government going to war to protect itself against a threat that was not there, only to say it actually went for another reason after the fact.
Whatever happened to the Neo Nazi Pedophiles website? That site was hilarious. True comedic genius. I have heard that it was shut down by the Australian government and I also heard that the sites author was getting to many threats from real neonazi groups who were offended by his site.
I hate this french law.
Do I need a lawyer?
Not only that, but France has an economy roughly the size of Britain, or Italy. A trillion and a half dollars GDP may not be our 10 1/2 trillion dollar GDP, but it's nothing to scoff at. Quite clearly French businesses don't "capitulate instantaneously".
No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
Yeah... because having your trading partners and military allies on your side is a bad thing. I mean, we like Europe to side against us with the WTO! We like paying for 90% of the costs of the Iraq war, and losing 90% of the lives, ourselves. We don't like international cover - we'd much rather be seen as an occupying force. Right?
I find it ever so amusing that in Iraq - the country that we came to "liberate" - polls consistantly show the public far preferring the French to the US. Perhaps we should rethink how we try and win the hearts and minds at the point of a gun. Not that France is some sort of an angel, mind you.
No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
Good point! I mean, when they started making noise about US steel tarrifs, nothing happened right? They certainly didn't go to the WTO, and get sanctions on the US, right?
Their making noise about Iraq sure had no effect! I mean, look at how well it turned out, given that the US didn't get its desired international cover, and 90% of the casualties and 90% of the costs are American. Whoever is in charge of printing Stop-Loss orders must be getting paid overtime. Or, wait, are you going to claim that it was doomed from the start? In that case, you all only have yourselves to blame for your god-awful judgement - something that the French tried to warn you all of!
No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
"pathetic nanny state" = "pathetic nanny government".
Maybe thats why the US went to Iraq, but if they would have said it out right UK,Spain,Italy,Denmark,etc would never had sent any one to help them do it.
Its all about international law. Europe was fucked big time during the last centuray and now Euorpeans really really want a world where one coutry cant just go and attack another becouse they dont like something about it.
The First Amendment is a sword, sir, it is.
The freedom clause of your US First Amendment has essentially no protection for atheists and freethinkers.
Why? Because the people in the US government are not exempted from "exercising their religious freedoms". Moreover, putting God into the Pledge of Allegiance technically does not break any First Amendment stipulations.
And that's the point: only 2 of the US' 43 presidents are non-religious. And you are of course aware that the person who originally wrote the PoA was a Baptist minister and dead set against using the word God.
But even religious freedoms have died from America. Not in the way that is defined in your constitution, but in looser, more vague ways that have equally strong effects on people.
I don't come from a country that is half as free (in other respects from religion) as America, but even I don't have to say God for my morning pledge recital.
"It seems that the noise 'old europe' makes about any particular issue is inversly proportional to their ability to do anything."
Which is exactly as it should be, don't you think?
"These laws are here to protect history..."
History is always written by the victor and will always favor the author, but obviously only a "history" so off-base and incredibly untruthful needs laws protecting it. Usually it is businesses that are protected by laws, and in this context they are called shoah business or holocaust industry.
It is illegal so sell, manufacture or transport any drugs in the Netherlands unless you have a licence to do this for medical, instructional or scientific purposes. Shipping pot to the States is not allowed.
e therlands
So how come we have pot selling coffeeshops?
the government wants to keep an eye on the selling of soft drugs so it has allowed the prosecutors office to set a series of guidelines. If you carry 5 grams or less of pot for personal use you will not be prosecuted. A coffeshop is allowed to have a maximum of 500 grams for trade.
Read the exellent wiki article about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_N
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. NO!
You cannot re-write the history of what actually happened to suit your current needs. The removal of Saddam Hussein from power was never the officially stated objective of the war. It was to restrict Iraq's WMD programs, as they presented an imminent threat to the United States.
Of course the real aim of the war was to depose Saddam and take over the country. But countries which arbitrarily invade other countries simply because they don't like the current regime are generally considered ass-fucking cunt-straps in the rest of the world, and are treated accordingly. Even your illegitimately 'elected' leaders (I love the irony of George W Bush being the leader of the so-called democratic free world after actually losing an election. So much shit is verbalized about the second amendment, and how it will prevent 'a hostile government stripping away freedom from the people!'. Look around, asswipes. An unelected pretender to the throne has taken power, STOLEN government from you, and not a single shot was fired from your precious second amendment protected firearms to prevent it. NOT ONE SHOT. You are, to the last man, woman and child, a nation of liars and hypocrites. Die, fuckers, die a horrible, leaping from the WTC burning alive death. Every single one of you.) realised this, and needed to cook up an alternative story.
Unfortunately, you brain-dead cretins in the US were the only ones who bought it.
You're all cunts. Every. Last. One. Of. You. With luck, and God's blessing, all 280 million of you will die shortly, and the world will quickly forget the disgusting blight on the planet that you once represented.
Peace out, brother.
The court decision is there.
Interview (fr) of Joel Reidenberg (internet legal issues expert, law teacher at Fordham university.)
=~Speak for yourself, grasshopper.
Flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop, flip, flop . . .
Well. That Chalabi guy seemed pretty OK at the time . He told us we were cool. We cared about him...
One where products advertised must be imported from the US.
France can make it illegal to import. Therefore it would be somewhat of a problem to export something that is banned from import in the country of destination.
France cannot force the US to remove the items.
My personal opinion is that a country that gladly kept all sorts of records on its citizens making it easy for the Nazis to find their victims got what was coming to them. That should teach them about privacy.
And if I were interested in history for personal research and enrichment, having an item from that era might allow me to appreciate the reality of thpse years not just the recorded history. It's a bit disturbing for someone to collect such things (and from an Erich Fromm perspective any kind of repetitive collecting is a sign of voluntary mentally deteriorating behavior - we call it an obsession whether it makes for Hollywood thrillers or not), but the past should and must be allowed to bite us or we'll forget the value of it.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
It's all about context.
I can understand that. To Americans, we grant neo-Nazis freedom of speech (if grudgingly), but Nazism doesn't carry the same sort of taboo and stigma here as it does in Germany. If it did, we might feel differently about the balance of free speech.
To put it in a context that Americans can understand, imagine a video game where you find and kill the bad guys, but instead of Nazis, the bad guys are child pornographers. And suppose the game contains photorealistic simulations of the bad guys actually creating the child porn. Perhaps the plot of the game is that you catch them in the act of making child porn, and administer a little vigilante justice on the spot.
Most Americans would want to ban such a game, and hang its creators by their toenails. It wouldn't matter if no actual child had been harmed in making the game (suppose young-looking adult actors helped with the portrayal of the simulated child porn). Child pornography is universally abhorred and loathed in this country, and I think the associated taboo and stigma might be comparable to the way Germans feel about Nazis.
For an even more relevant hypothetical, imagine a website in a foreign country selling real child pornography over the web. Free speech advocates might defend the hypothetical videogame with simulated child porn, but they wouldn't lift a finger to defend a vendor of real child porn. Wouldn't we want to prevent Americans from being able to purchase that child porn if possible? Our government would certainly try -- even if it was perfectly legal in the foreign country. (Suppose a girl was legally married at 10 years old and the married couple started selling amateur porn videos on the web?)
As an American, I can't know for sure how the Germans (and French) feel about the Nazis, but I believe this analogy is apt. Americans don't give a shit about free speech rights when it comes to real child porn (and even for simulated child porn, it's controversial) -- because we feel (as a society) that it's more important to prevent such atrocities than to slavishly follow our ideals about free speech to the letter. The world isn't black and white, and like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, there are times where Americans do not consider free speech paramount after all. I am very much an advocate of free speech, but there are necessarily limits -- otherwise we invite anarchy (or worse).
Germany and France have experienced the atrocities of the Nazis in their own homelands. Americans have not. Except for WWII veterans, for most Americans, the Nazis (and Hitler especially) may represent a symbol of ultimate evil, but that doesn't mean we have the same visceral reaction to Nazis, like we do with child pornography.
As an American, and a free speech advocate, my gut instinct is to say that the anti-Nazi laws in France and Germany are bad, and that free speech is more important. But we haven't suffered from the Nazis the way France and Germany have. If the USA had suffered Nazi occupation in World War II, we would probably be equally adament about Nazi suppression, despite our free speech ideals. As such, I have to allow for that difference in experiences, and admit that perhaps the anti-Nazi laws in France and Germany are justifiable.
That being said, I don't believe France has any right to dictate to Yahoo how to operate their US website, no matter what business Yahoo may do in France. At the same time, if a foreign multinational corporation started selling child porn outside this country, I guess we'd consider their US interests fair game to pressure them to stop. So I can't really blame the French for trying, but I hope they don't succeed.
[Ugh. I feel dirty just from having to talk about child pornography so much! But it's the only way I can think of to convey the analogy to my fellow Americans. To the French and Germans, obviously Nazis aren't to be grudgingly tolerated like the KKK is here -- they're to be utterly eradicated, as we feel about child pornographers...]
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay