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.
"

Comments

Re:Goodbye sovereignty

[Izago909]

How many more times are we going to let the courts, Congress, the President, etc. surrender our national sovereignty like this?

Probably about as many times as the we will trample on the sovereignty of other peaceful nations. Remember when the US got Australia to turn over one of their citizens for breaking US law even when no Australian law was broken? If positions were reversed, Americans would have cried bloody murder.

Re:too bad...

[Buzz_Litebeer]

Republicans like to yell from the crowd too I see.

I think your dipstick is a but weird if you think foxnews is middle of the road.

that is one hell of a wierd teeter totter.

For example, imagine foxnews were a duck, and all the other stations were a supposed witch.

Now imagine that the duck weights as much as the witch, how can that be? Well, you probably think she weights as much as wood.

It is odd if you say "look, ALL the other news that is supposed to be objective is left liberal, and fox is middle of the road"

Analyze your statement, and work from there. You read slashdot, so I have to give you some credit.

Most republicans I have seen on-line that argue points, completely disregard offical documentation, and actions, unless it suits them.

Official documentation is "lies", actions were "well intentioned", unless its for the other guy.

Then a fellow saying "Well, I didnt actually know him but I think he is a bad man" is a good enough excuse to call that person a bad man.

I also have found that Republicans use Op Ed peices as pure fact, and will quote op-ed (note im using op-ed as Opinion Editorial) as the basis for an entire argument, without checking any facts at all.

But the weird thing is, most counter facts anyone uses to counter the arguments are from news sites, and documentation, and video tape of what people said, and we know that is always out of context if we are a good republican right?

Unless, of course, it supports the republican opinion.

Hell, I think its funny that people can only accept one news source as THE OUTLET FOR NEWS, when it is obvious they are right wing, and every person on there is right wing. Even so far as using "support" for the other point of view as an april fools joke. I wish I had a picture of the duck and the witch now... the hunt begins!