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.
"
"
Yeah, those French anti-Nazi laws seem to be working real well.
Breakfast served all day!
Don't confuse the sale and promotion of Nazism and icons thereof with trying to cover up what happened. Europeans do not want that regime glorified. That's why some countries have laws such as this French law.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
They aren't covering up the history; they are trying to stem the popularity of neo-Nazi movements. Memorabilia can be used as icons for such things. Even European museums are relatively devoid of Nazi goods. Most exhibits consist of audio/video footage and are presented in a dry, factual manner.
No, they're fighting the French in both countries.
Personally, I think they should just keep it off of their French site (which they already took it off, although they said it wasn't because of the French court), and the French shouldn't try to enforce it on their main, US, site.
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.
The problem is, they already removed it from their French website, and the French courts are trying to force them to remove it from their US website.
It's a French court telling a US based company what to do in the US.
They didn't surrender national sovereignty so much as they recognized that even the French have it too.
The 9th Circuit overturned a ruling saying that thhe US First Amendment made the French verdict invalid. That's not a proper ruling at all, you can't appeal French verdicts in the US courts.
However, if they want to collect on a French verdict here in the USA by using the help of the US legal system... that's when they've got to prove that they've French verdict doesn't contradict US public policy. No chance of that working, so there's really no need to get protection from the dumb French verdict from the US courts in the first place, thanks to our national sovereignty we won't accept that verdict here.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
This is not about a global website, but the viewing of Yahoo.fr in France! France is not trying to change Yahoo for anyone but the French. They are not trying to "shove this down the throats of the rest of the Internet". (In fact, when the initial case came up, the French government would have been satisfied with Yahoo blocking this off to French citizens only)
Since Yahoo.fr specifically does business in France, it therefore has to follow the law, just like any other classic company doing business in France would! If Toyota (or even an online company such as Lycos) were to put up a website calling for physical harm to the president, that would be against American laws, and the US court system would act accordingly.
The french capitulated with Hitler more or less 100%.
..and they're certainly not the only country that's induged in that conceit.
That's not *quite* fair. The Free French Army fielded 10 battalions or so on D-Day, and Eisenhower said that the French Resistance was worth ten divisions.
Yes, Petain turned out to be a traitor, but he's far from the only traitor in history. It's an American, Benedict Arnold, and a Norwegian, Vidkun Quisling, whose names are synonymous with "traitor".
they are taught they are the pinnacle of humanity.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The French position may be unenforceable, and even wrong, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
I'll quote from the following article by Uri Avnery. The last sentence is the relevant statement.
Yes, an outstanding documentary. Commissioned by a French TV station in 1969 that then refused to broadcast it because it didn't convey the expected imagery, so released in theaters in 1971. The DVD is released by Milestone and has new English subtitling.
"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.
This link suggests otherwise. And this discussion refers to a different court case that clearly supports the notion of "redskin" as a derogatory term referring to the scalps of Indian victims. And in the Kotelly case you mention, the judge plainly states that her ruling is not a ruling on whether the term is offensive to Indians in general or not. Whether or not Dietz put paint on his face, it's pretty clear that this term is widely considered an insult based on the history cited in these links.
as a member of the EU, france must not extradite anyone who could become a subject of capital punishment.
I've never been in a real war, but I've worn the uniform, tossed grenades, been gassed and fired a machine gun. How about you?
I can also read. Here's what William Manchester says about it in The Glory and The Dream:
"Paris disturbed some Americans. It didn't look at all like an enslaved capital. Compared to London, it was prospering. Ed Murrow was surprised at the number of well-dressed women on the streets. Not only had the French textile industry flourished throughout the war; the French had developed the first practical television transmitters and sets. All the famous couturiers were in business-Molyneux, Lanvin, Schiaparelli-and their French customers were wearing full skirts and mutton-legged sleeves, which had long been out of the question for American and Britich women limited by clothes rationing.
So you see, all you have to do is read a little history instead of spouting righteous indignation.
That's what I like about slashdot. Get a little edgy in the wrong way and you're a troll or immature or whatnot.
And screw your comment about my attitude starting wars. I'm the one that's quoting history, asshole.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to inform you that the Washington Redskins are located in the state of Washington, not in Washington D.C. which is where the nation's capital is located. It's not like they are close either... they are on opposite coasts.
OMFG. I don't even live in North America and I can tell you that the Washington Redskins play in Washington DC (well, just outside it, if I remember correctly) and not Washington state. The only NFL franchise in Washington state is the Seattle Seahawks.
This is what I just love about Slashdot, and Slashdot ACs in particular: lots of people who don't know shit about a single thing but are willing to open their mouths and remove all doubt that they are indeed idiots.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
"You have no idea what you are talking right? France has actually a very right wing government."
UDP and UMP lost majority this year to the collectively left-wing Socialist Party, Communist Party, and the Greens and Radicals Party. Chirac's party, the UMP, formed in 2002 to unite the right-wing factions, couldn't get more than 1/6th of the vote in the March '04 elections; which had a ~65% voter turnout.
But you're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
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"
Watch this Heartland Institute video
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
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
However, you can bet that the American who orders pot from a Dutch company is going to have some explaining to do when they arrive to pick up their package.
I believe it's the job of the destination country to restrict their own borders as they see fit. Nothing you said would seem to contradict that.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?