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*
... 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.
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
Yeah, those French anti-Nazi laws seem to be working real well.
Breakfast served all day!
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
But we do a fine job of not mentioning the genocide of Native Americans, including but not limited to the fact that Indian Health Service routinely sterilized women as late as 1970. Recently we're getting a little better about this, as some modern advanced history books actually talk about stuff like The Longest Walk now, but this stuff happened much longer ago than WWII.
Also, they're not ( in theory ) so much trying to cover up the *history*, as to keep the *current* bunch of Nazis from preaching the gospel of hate, and gaining acceptability through their icons. Not that such a tack is likely to work... but these laws are in fact not unlike anti-gang laws in the US. Except you can still *buy* red and blue bandannas. Just don't try to wear one to school...
I guess if neo-Nazis had as many pressure groups etc as the Jewish people then neo-Nazis could get protection under anti-hate law, but I expect that currently it is OK (legally) to hate neo-Nazis or any Nazi artifacts.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I've got five shiny mod points at the moment, but rather than mod you, I'll take the time to point out that you don't have a "provoking question", you have a "groundless opinion". There's a difference. Thanks for playing.
Seriously, the courts, Congress, and President surrender our national sovereignty like this? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm sure as hell not voting for Bush, but of all the bad things he's done, he hasn't surrendered "our national sovereignty like this".
Maybe if France owned 9% of our economy... maybe if this involved oil... maybe if this involved actually going to war. What the hell are you talking about? This is a freaking WEBSITE that's selling junk on the INTARNET. Surrender our national sovereignty like this? You don't have a "provoking question", hell, you don't have "a clue".
And there ya go - I posted instead of modded. You're welcome.
This reads like a troll to me, but since you don't seem to have been marked a troll recently, if at all, I'll bite...
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?
This event has nothing to do with our sovereignty, not yet have our rights been surrendered. Another country has expressed a dislike of one of our businesses items, that goes against their laws. Businesses have to accept the laws of the country they do business in... if a company centered in Denmark came here and started selling marijuana even if online, through an american domain, they would be circumspect to our laws, and we would all applaud the ripping apart of that country. Yes, I agree that they shouldn't be offended over something like this, and that they should just let the past be the past, but I do not think we should dictate their laws. The idea that we should be allowed to do that is to that country exactly what in your post you aren't willing to take anymore.
Yeah, this'll probably get marked Flamebait for asking such a provoking question.No, you probably wont be marked Flamebait, but maybe you'll be marked overrated for not thinking before you post.
WANNAWIKI Wannawiki WannaWiki WANNAWIKI!
According to the French government, by outlawing Nazi paraphenalia and memorabilia.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
This is not quite accurate - I have seen many original Nazi posters and other propaganda material in museums in Germany and in other countries in Europe.
:-)
I think swastikas are good things actually. It makes neo-nazis easy to identify - forcing them to pick some other symbol is helping them to make a decision they otherwise wouldn't be smart enough to make. It would be as if all dog turds suddenly came with little red flags so you wouldn't step in them any more
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
you completely miss the point.
there are frequent occurrences of anti-semitic vandalism in france. it's on the rise, so much so that israel's "move to israel" propaganda is having an effect in france.
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.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
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.)
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."
No more than French law applies to US company with headquarters and equipment within US borders.
Regardless of the French government's opinion of its subjects, the French are not children and should not be treated as such. France will survive quite well if a Parisian wants to read Mein Kempf.
We should not be forced to censor every piece of speech or expression that embarasses some other country. If that offends the thought police in France, Germany, China and other such countries, tough.
Only on
there are frequent occurrences of anti-semitic vandalism in france. it's on the rise
Many people think that's the result of the anti-nazi laws and jewish protection laws. The act of criminalizing nazi *ideas* makes them attractive to a whole slew of mentally unstable people, and youth who are drawn to forbidden things.
Just look at the US: we're let hate groups say whatever they wanted, and now the hate speech they spew out is banalized, and people look at them as the redneck morons they are. In France, the criminalization of hate speech and hate-related objects makes them dangerously attractive.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
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?!
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
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
And it was the French that saved the Americans from saluting the king. Your point?
Why do most European countries insist on covering up any history of Hitler?
Could you spout more ignorant bullshit? To the people who moderated this up: this is completely inaccurate. I doubt that the poster could even label the countries of Europe on a map let alone tell you how modern European history is taught on the continent.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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.
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.
You shouldn't forget that France has the largest Muslim arab immigrant population in all of Europe. Mutual dislike between Muslims and Jews is nothing particularly new, I'd wager.
There is a strong anti-Israel sentiment in France, but despite what pro-Israel groups would have you believe, that isn't quite the same as anti-semitism, because it is motivated by national politics rather than religious belief/ethnic identity. Many French disagree with Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and ignore PLO terrorist tactics; just as we in the US take the opposite view, condoning IDF atrocities while condemning outright PLO activities.
Neither view is wholly unbiased. France taking the PLO side is probably mostly due to domestic political lobbying by Muslims in France, just as our pro-Israel stance is mostly due to domestic political lobbying of Jews in the US.
Anyone who has looked at the situation over there in any sort of logical way will recognize that both groups are pretty shitty to each other and both seem to feel that God is on their side. Not a recipe for long lasting stability or peace.
At any rate, I am both Jewish and pro-Israel, American and of French descent (parents are French). When I go back to visit family I don't feel like I get any static from anyone about being Jewish, although I imagine (perhaps incorrectly) that some Arabs might have issues with it if they knew.
But I can say that as a liberal-minded individual it annoys me that some pro-Israel groups attempt to leverage the cultural fear we all have of being "anti-semetic" in order to increase support for Israel, a la "If you don't support Israel, you don't support Jews. Nazi!" This has worked suprisingly well on a lot of Americans especially.
I dislike it not because I don't want people to support Israel, but because I think people are beginning to realize that they're being manipulated, and equating "anti-Israel" with "anti-semetic" is very much degrading the notion of anti-semitism; if all you need to do to be anti-semetic is be anti-Israel, well, it doesn't take much, does it? And so suddenly we're lumping a lot politically-critical people who are otherwise not at all anti-semites in with the KKK. Kind of removes the utility of the term, imho.
Hrm... the law... Come back when Congress passes an anti-Nazi law. Otherwise, though we may not agree with it, it's a matter of French law.
Now, if France tried to collect its fines out of Yahoo!'s US assets, then there'd be a problem; they'd run into article V of the same document. But all the court said is that Yahoo! can't protect its French assets in a US court simply because of where they're headquartered.
(So... when do companies start getting their US assets fined for not complying with US labor laws while operating overseas?)
Complete and utter crap. You really have no clue about how Europeans regard Hitler, the Nazis and World War II. Europeans don't try to deny Nazism, what they do (and this law is a clear example of it) is deny neo-Nazis the chance to use Hitler's Third Reich as a tool to spread hatred and evil today.
I'm European. WWII history was taught to me at school, just as it's taught to every schoolkid from Iceland to Russia. Delude yourself that Europeans don't learn about Hitler if you want, but don't try and dupe others into believing it too.
And, by the way, perhaps this is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. Native Americans are so well respected and so well treated in the US today that the name of the NFL franchise in the nations capital is called the Washington Redskins. That's about as racially sensitive as having a team called the LA Niggers, yet nobody seems to give a shit outside the tiny minority of Native Americans still left.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
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.
Nothing to do with covering up Nazism. The history of WWII, the death camps and Adolf Hitler get a lot of attention in general education. You can walk around most European cities and find plates in the street saying "Here so and so were shot down by the German army", "There so and so was tortured to death by the Gestapo". History is present in everyday life at an extent most USians cannot imagine.
It's so present that professing Nazism today is now not considered as free speech. This ideology was given a try and resulted in tens of millions of people killed all over Europe. There's no more benefit of the doubt, no room left for public debate. The case is settled. Nazism is pure unadulterated evil. Its ideas do kill people and must not be tolerated in a civilized society.
There is one thing you must know about Nazism to understand why it is actively repressed in Europe. Nazism emerged from a democracy (while Stalinism emerged from a dictorial environment). Germany's Weimar Republic may have been dysfunctionnal and rife with political violence but it was a democracy nonetheless. Adolf Hitler came to power by the polls and gained a large following by convincing people far more than by coercing them. So there is no illusion in Europe on the ability of democracies to deal with this kind of ideas by the mere virtue of democratic debate. We know all too well how totalitarian ideologies can fall through the cracks and use momentary difficulties to impose themselves. Hence, the will not give those ideas any breathing space.
We know that democracies are fragile and must be defended. We learned that the hard way and that's a lesson I hope we'll never forget.
SNS Not Sig
"You'll be surprised to learn that there is free speech in Europe."
But it's perhaps not as liberally applied as it is in the US. As has been pointed out around here ad nauseam, most fundamental legal documents in Western countries say something to the effect of "the people have freedom of speech," essentially leaving it open to interpretation as to just how much freedom they are granted (by their government, presumably). The national charter in the US says "thou shalt not" to the national government with reguards to speech laws and another amendment forces all member states to follow suit.
"Not only that, you will be surprised that there are far fewer people making use of their free speech to put forward outlandish theories."
Apparently because it is illegal to do so. However, this begs the question of just who it is that decides what is outlandish and what is not, and what standards are used.
And is it that fewer people believe these theories, or simply because fewer people feel safe to admit they believe them?
"Name another industrialised nation where creationism is even being discussed as a topic for public school curricula..."
Somebody else's state, somebody else's problem. That's one of the nice things about federalism.
"Anyways, there's always limits to free speech, even in the home country of the first amendment (think slander, think inaccurate advertising (like Jay's vs. Lay's in Chicago a few weeks ago))."
How does freedom of speech equate to freedom from responsibility? Essentially, all the amendment says is that the government can't keep you from putting your foot in your mouth. And even then, in the case of slander, most (if not all) state constitutions guarantee that the truth can never be considered slander.
"What's more, the European press didn't censor itself in the runup to the Iraq war."
What are you looking for, free speech or forced speech? If you want the latter, please refer to the amendment three below this one.
"What good is free speech if it's unpatriotic to criticize the president's warmongering?"
The fact that it's not government-mandated.
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.
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.
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."
I'll quote from the following article by Uri Avnery. The last sentence is the relevant statement.
> Americans and American companies have to realize that their laws do NOT apply outside of their borders
There's some irony in that since the case is about the French court system pushing their law on a US site on US soil meant for a US audience.
However, the question remains:
The internet is making borders seem more artificial than ever, yet behind each border hides a slightly different sets and rules to abide.
This is probably not tenable in the long run.
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.
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.
"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"
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.
"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.
That is absurd. "Redskin" may only make sense to 1% (though it is likely more), but if most of those are native Americans, they know they are being slurred. How can you say it is not an ethnic slur??
That's what Slashdot is for.
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.
Considering the fact that southern France was collaberating with the Nazis, I should think that they'd have not been that much more deprived than citizens of Germany during the war.
The average Parisian lost 20kg during the Nazi occupation. I could dig for something about southern France, but you get the idea.
Aside from that, you seem to be supportive of France's attempt at purging "bad thoughts" from the minds of everyone on planet Earth
No, I'm not.
I'm, to the contrary, opposed to jingoist who act as though this was somehow a French thing. First of all, right there, you claim they are trying to "purge" the thoughts of, as you said, everyone on the planet. Whereas we are talking about a law that only applies to, surprise surprise, France.
Your justification of your hatred of all things French is what I oppose.
My feelings about that perticular law or that perticular case are not involved, this is about you jerks attacking a whole country, a whole people and culture, and acting as though you were justified, as if this were right.
American courts and lawmakers will come to Yahoo's rescue and put the pompous French beaurocrats right back on their socialist asses.
Yes, they are pompous.
Its as though, you know, they want a company doing is business in their own country to obey the law of the land, and the company was responding by having the court of another country try to impose its own laws to a sovereign nation.
Because, of course, since America is better than the rest of the planet, it's laws take precedence over all other laws. That is not pompous, oh my no!
Otherwise, we may well see the content of the internet reduced to the lowest common denominator of PC-filtered non-offensive non-confrontational child-safe mind-numbing drool.
Because, of course, laws affecting content on the internet are only passed in inferior countries, the Almighty, divine United States of America are above, amongst other things, passing such laws.
So lets see, your opinion is that the French people did not suffer during WWII, that they are pompous, that they want to purge the thoughts of the entire world, and that they should submit to U.S. law.
My opinion is that you are a jingoist bigot.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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)
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
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...
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"
See, the notion that religion has no place in school goes against the notion that you should be free to practice it. Religion is an integral part of who you are, it's not something you check at the door. Seems you're confusing "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion."
common sense: noun
What those who are ignorant of the subject matter think; usually wrong.
Come on. Grow up. When is the last time you were in a real war? You have absolutely no idea how how much of a shitty time this was for Europe. Comments like these and atitudes like yours is what causes history to repeat itself.
Europe went through a lot of gruesome wars, and had a terrible experience with colonialism. This pretty much explains why they (that is the people) currently cannot stomach much o fthe US foreign policies.
American courts and lawmakers will come to Yahoo's rescue and put the pompous French beaurocrats right back on their socialist asses.
You have no idea what you are talking right? France has actually a very right wing government.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
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?!
Well, US arrested a Russian hacker for doing something in his country that wasn't against his laws. Who set the precedent?
"I think this line is mostly filler"
It's not about the violence, it's about the Nazi symbols. They are unconstitutional in Germany, so for instance parading the streets with a swastika flag will get you a court appointment. Using them in a computergame is a no go area, because even though you shoot the nazis in wolfenstein, Computergames are considered a toy and Nazi logos are beyond limits there (It's the same for scale modelling kits btw, if you buy a Tiger tank kit or something like that in a German store you won't find any decals with swastikas, SS runes etc.) Now, while there are no Swastikas in the German version of the Indy 3 Adventure computergame (at least they were removed in the VGA version, not sure for the Amiga one, can't remember), there is no such problem with the Indy Movies, because they are considered art, and as long as the movie isn't Nazi propaganda the Swastikas are no problem. It's all about context.
Just look at the US: we're let hate groups say whatever they wanted, and now the hate speech they spew out is banalized, and people look at them as the redneck morons they are. In France, the criminalization of hate speech and hate-related objects makes them dangerously attractive.
Hooray for a priori reasoning! Do you have any evidence at all that hate speech is on the decline in the US while on the rise in France? No? Did you just whip this out of thin air because it sounded right, though a critical observer might have no objective reason to believe it?
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."
Well, I understand what you mean, but that's not the way people think in France: it seems we're debating over cultural differences (meaning that each of us is right in his own way).
In France, religion belongs to the private sphere of your life and is not a public matter. Church and State are separated, there is no "in god we trust" on our banknotes and a church wedding has no legal value (you need to go the mayor). This separation between church and state is fairly old and is a very important thing over there.
One of the consequences of these things is that religion (a private thing) is not to be broadcasted at school, which, being a state school in a secular country, doesn't want to have any link with religion.
Note that you still have the possibility to go to private schools (which are not necessarily expensive, since teachers in private schools are paid by the state as well) in which religion will play a part and will be taught.
Now, as to your comment,
the notion that religion has no place in school goes against the notion that you shouldn't be free to practice it. Religion is an integral part of who you are, it's not something you check at the door.
Well, this is precisely where the cultural difference appears: when the French public system was designed, this is precisely what people had in mind. France has a strong history of anti-clericalism. Religion, is something you're supposed to check at the door.
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.
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...
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"
"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
Except I don't remember the Cubans ever starting a world war and killing millions of people. ...).
But your right: every country has its restrictions on what can and cannot be sold. In the Netherlands you can buy pot legally, which is prohibited in most countries I know (of course, that doesn't mean pot isn't being sold there too). In Texas you can't buy dildo's (of course you can, but they label it "educational aids").
And in fact, I don't think restricting the sales of Nazi stuff is that bad. I mean, Nazi's are all about hatred. Making a whole nation hate a certain group of people can end up very bad (jewspalestina, muslim fundamentalistsunited states, catholicsprotestants,
This is one lame signature, please read the message above instead.
freedom os speech yes, thought polluting bile no.
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.
Also... ... ...
Another aspect of those laws is memory.
From U.S., a few million people came to Europe to rescue us. Thanks. A lot. But while many of you died for us, very few lived under occupation.
Here in Europe, everyone over 60 lived the terror. Everyone over 70 can name friend/families who died. Many old people who have forgiven germany (and others) crimes still wince when they hear a german military anthem, cry when they see a svastika tatoo. Those law are as much about neo-nazy movement as they are about respect to the dead and their fight. People fought to rid Europe of nazism and oppression and current law prohibit the display and selling of those items in memory of that fight.
I wasnt alive during that war. For me, a German dagger is a nice knife. For older people, its a symbol of dead and oppresion , and trading/displaying it hurt them. Ence those law.
Beside this, people and corporation doing business in a country must respect local law. A car drived by someone working for a german society cannot drive at 200mph on an american highway. Yahoo cannot sell or offer to sell nazi memorabilia to french people.
The World wide aspect of the web make this complicared, since yahoo have no easy way to know to whom it is displaying the sale offer, and france have no easy way to filter illegal offering. So, court fight
But stop crying about 'covering up history'. the only problem, and the interesting one, is about local law aplication in internationnal web dealings. And i suspect many lawyer will spend many hours and money on this for many years
"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.