Giant international corporations such as Yahoo, GM, or Ford must play the local rules -- American laws, traditions, and human rights have nothing to do with megaconglomerate behaviour and never have. When GM or Ford wished to do business in Nazi Germany, the local (that is German) divisions of Ford & GM had to obey Nazi "law" (despite it oppression of human rights) -- and Germany requires that megaconglomerates obey its laws when its services and products are sold in modern Germany even when this violates human rights (witness the concern over Windows because some small part of it has a chance and tenuous connexion to Scientology).
Why should France be any different than Nazi Germany or Budesrepublic? France is in Europe; it follows European traditions of government: the divine right of kings, the omnipotent state founded on racial purity or upon the knowldege of the iron laws of history, the will of people as embodied in Il Duce, etc. (It's not as if Germans have *ever* had freedom of speech or relgion -- or the French.) I certainly don't expect Yahoo! to be moral than Ford or GM. Business is business and business always triumphs human rights.
Fifty years after the Nazis were beaten (without much French help) and 10 years after Communism was beaten, the European bureaucracy clings to its habits of omnipotence and oppression. This judicial ruling is the reason why we have an army in Europe: let's use it!
"It's not a US vs EU thing, it's about stopping a big, monolithic, and IMHO ultimately malignent corporation from pushing their views to people ignoring local politcal and legal institutions in the process."
Too true. & right after the EU self-destructs (the combination of European governments would be too powerful) and Airbus is destroyed, I'll worry about Time-Warner-AOL.
Next some EU governments are going to tell Americans what we can put on our websites, as if they get a say. Oh, yeah. They are. A malignant, anti-human rights EU-French government is attempting to suspend free speech in America.
The problem stems, for example, stems from the confusion between Mattel's toy Barbie (tm) and the use of the name "Barbie" -- a legitimate girl's name - by anyone else, including someone named Barbie. Had the designers of the web required that a web site devoted to a product
include a domain marking it as a product, e.g..prd;
include the owning corporation's name, e.g., Mattel, and
a generic trem for the product, then the problem of trademark infringement between
Mattel.prd.toy.Barbie.com.us
Sexhunger.prd.pron.Barbie.com.us
wouldn't exist.
For example, the New York Times and the London Times and the thousands of other newspapers named "Times" have yet to sue each other, nor is Time magazine involved.
It's not too late for some foresight on this. It's still early in the web, and this is one problem well worth fixing. MT
The government of France in the form of a court has asked Yahoo! to restrict access by French citizens to items which the French government deems inappropriate for French citizens for view or to purchase. I have no problems with Yahoo! placing a filter between its content and the people of France, so that any request to view inappropriate content from.fr domains is forbidden. The first and second amendments do not apply in France. A request by the French government for any American citizen, institution, or government to censor should be treated with the same dignity and respect shown to such a request if it had come from the South African apartheid government or the Soviet Union. It is censorship but it's French censorship. It's the obligation of the people of France to replace their government with one more democratic and humane, that will create a constitution for the French people that will include the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and other rights as the French see fit. I could write an eloquent and witting essay about the evils of censorship. But all such arguments are either slippery slope arguments: if a government begins banning some speech, when a different group comes to power, different speech will be banned, and there will be no persuasive opposing argument. They won; it's their turn to use the law and government as they see fit. Or they are praetorian arguments: if the government is empowered to ban speech, the first speech banned is that which embarrasses the government. Recent French embarrassments regarding disposition of Jewish property during the occupation - embarrassments that should have been public knowledge decades ago, are proof of two things: politicians do, in fact, ban items that could cause humiliation and the loss of power, and that no secret lasts forever. Or they arguments about privilege. Strictly speaking, Nazi memorabilia isn't banned in France. People and institutions with the appropriate social status (historians, museums) are permitted to possess and display objects otherwise forbidden to French citizens. In effect, there are two classes in France: those licensed by the government to speak freely and those who are not. Once again, the beneficiaries of licensing speech are obvious. Instead of a rational argument, I could attempt to shame supporters of this oppressive French court. I could parody Heine: "Where they ban trinkets they will also ban people." I could beginning by pointing at French hypocrisy: it's wrong to ban Nazi memorabilia without also banning Communist memorabilia (or "How many millions must be killed until the government of France thinks a political movement is evil?"). It's wrong to ban Nazi memorabilia as hate speech, without also banning what everyone else thinks is hate speech, else hate speech will be defined by who won the last election. I could use this incident as an illustration of why world laws and world government are bad ideas: territoriality. The will of a French court does not reach Americans. But if the French could appeal to a World Internet Standard Court, established by a treaty the USA agreed to, then a ban in France would be a ban in America. Finally, I could point out the obvious: if France (or Canada, or the Soviet Union, or Zimbabwe doesn't want books, trinkets, or information entering crossing its borders, they those governments should create a customs department to regulate what is imported. It is not the duty of other governments or citizens of other countries to regulate the borders of France.
Historical artifacts as hate speech. Interesting opinion. Obiviously you're opposed to free speech, period, since you state clearly that speech should be free only if it is inoffensive (non-hate).
Does France ban Communist memorbilia? (Hate speech against, well, everyone.) Feminist memorbilia (hate speech again men). Gay memorbilia (esp. Darwin fish, hate speech against Christians, Jews, Muslims...)? (And please, don't bother arguing with me that those aren't hate movements or hate speech. Just like you, I get to say what is hate, too.)
"Jews are rapists" -- bad hate. (Nazism) "Men are rapists" -- good hate. (Feminism)
"I'd suppose than a "conservative" parent would be much more likely to use filtering software than a "leftist" parent."
"Gales of Riotous Laughter, Bruce!" Leftists label sites they don't like "hate" sites. It doesn't take much searching to uncover virulent essays on not linking to "hate" sites.
"That lead to some measurements a lot of US or Canada residents deem extreme themselves, but AFAIK most European countries share Germanys current view because they themselves suffered under the Nazis during WWII and/or a communist dictatorship during the cold war. " Yes, Germany regulates political speech of unpopular parties, but most ECU states ban only Nazi-like parties; communists are not only acceptable but welcome (and continue to serve in the government). Seems mass murder is still okay if it's done for the good reason. Now if only the potential gun-toting, mass killing, high school students will form a union or religion, then they, too, can be banned and the Pinkertons will be on the side of Germans.
Since the U.N. has already declared Zionism to be a racism, the goal of this new U.N. program is clear. I urge everyone who opposes anti-semitism to oppose this new U.N. initiative. I hope this silly idea will die the same death as the U.N.'s plans to license reporters (so that unlicensed reporters could be deported or imprisoned). M_T
Slashdot Mirror
There is a play based on the The Hobbit. Perhaps the estate thought a film would compete with it.
Giant international corporations such as Yahoo, GM, or Ford must play the local rules -- American laws, traditions, and human rights have nothing to do with megaconglomerate behaviour and never have. When GM or Ford wished to do business in Nazi Germany, the local (that is German) divisions of Ford & GM had to obey Nazi "law" (despite it oppression of human rights) -- and Germany requires that megaconglomerates obey its laws when its services and products are sold in modern Germany even when this violates human rights (witness the concern over Windows because some small part of it has a chance and tenuous connexion to Scientology).
Why should France be any different than Nazi Germany or Budesrepublic? France is in Europe; it follows European traditions of government: the divine right of kings, the omnipotent state founded on racial purity or upon the knowldege of the iron laws of history, the will of people as embodied in Il Duce, etc. (It's not as if Germans have *ever* had freedom of speech or relgion -- or the French.) I certainly don't expect Yahoo! to be moral than Ford or GM. Business is business and business always triumphs human rights.
Fifty years after the Nazis were beaten (without much French help) and 10 years after Communism was beaten, the European bureaucracy clings to its habits of omnipotence and oppression. This judicial ruling is the reason why we have an army in Europe: let's use it!
Too true. & right after the EU self-destructs (the combination of European governments would be too powerful) and Airbus is destroyed, I'll worry about Time-Warner-AOL.
Next some EU governments are going to tell Americans what we can put on our websites, as if they get a say. Oh, yeah. They are. A malignant, anti-human rights EU-French government is attempting to suspend free speech in America.
The problem stems, for example, stems from the confusion between Mattel's toy Barbie (tm) and the use of the name "Barbie" -- a legitimate girl's name - by anyone else, including someone named Barbie. Had the designers of the web required that a web site devoted to a product
Mattel.prd.toy.Barbie.com.us
Sexhunger.prd.pron.Barbie.com.us
wouldn't exist.
For example, the New York Times and the London Times and the thousands of other newspapers named "Times" have yet to sue each other, nor is Time magazine involved.
It's not too late for some foresight on this. It's still early in the web, and this is one problem well worth fixing. MT
The government of France in the form of a court has asked Yahoo! to restrict access by French citizens to items which the French government deems inappropriate for French citizens for view or to purchase. I have no problems with Yahoo! placing a filter between its content and the people of France, so that any request to view inappropriate content from .fr domains is forbidden. The first and second amendments do not apply in France. A request by the French government for any American citizen, institution, or government to censor should be treated with the same dignity and respect shown to such a request if it had come from the South African apartheid government or the Soviet Union. It is censorship but it's French censorship. It's the obligation of the people of France to replace their government with one more democratic and humane, that will create a constitution for the French people that will include the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and other rights as the French see fit. I could write an eloquent and witting essay about the evils of censorship. But all such arguments are either slippery slope arguments: if a government begins banning some speech, when a different group comes to power, different speech will be banned, and there will be no persuasive opposing argument. They won; it's their turn to use the law and government as they see fit. Or they are praetorian arguments: if the government is empowered to ban speech, the first speech banned is that which embarrasses the government. Recent French embarrassments regarding disposition of Jewish property during the occupation - embarrassments that should have been public knowledge decades ago, are proof of two things: politicians do, in fact, ban items that could cause humiliation and the loss of power, and that no secret lasts forever. Or they arguments about privilege. Strictly speaking, Nazi memorabilia isn't banned in France. People and institutions with the appropriate social status (historians, museums) are permitted to possess and display objects otherwise forbidden to French citizens. In effect, there are two classes in France: those licensed by the government to speak freely and those who are not. Once again, the beneficiaries of licensing speech are obvious. Instead of a rational argument, I could attempt to shame supporters of this oppressive French court. I could parody Heine: "Where they ban trinkets they will also ban people." I could beginning by pointing at French hypocrisy: it's wrong to ban Nazi memorabilia without also banning Communist memorabilia (or "How many millions must be killed until the government of France thinks a political movement is evil?"). It's wrong to ban Nazi memorabilia as hate speech, without also banning what everyone else thinks is hate speech, else hate speech will be defined by who won the last election. I could use this incident as an illustration of why world laws and world government are bad ideas: territoriality. The will of a French court does not reach Americans. But if the French could appeal to a World Internet Standard Court, established by a treaty the USA agreed to, then a ban in France would be a ban in America. Finally, I could point out the obvious: if France (or Canada, or the Soviet Union, or Zimbabwe doesn't want books, trinkets, or information entering crossing its borders, they those governments should create a customs department to regulate what is imported. It is not the duty of other governments or citizens of other countries to regulate the borders of France.
Historical artifacts as hate speech. Interesting opinion. Obiviously you're opposed to free speech, period, since you state clearly that speech should be free only if it is inoffensive (non-hate).
Does France ban Communist memorbilia? (Hate speech against, well, everyone.) Feminist memorbilia (hate speech again men). Gay memorbilia (esp. Darwin fish, hate speech against Christians, Jews, Muslims...)? (And please, don't bother arguing with me that those aren't hate movements or hate speech. Just like you, I get to say what is hate, too.)
"Jews are rapists" -- bad hate. (Nazism)
"Men are rapists" -- good hate. (Feminism)
"I'd suppose than a "conservative" parent would be much more likely to use filtering software than a "leftist" parent." "Gales of Riotous Laughter, Bruce!" Leftists label sites they don't like "hate" sites. It doesn't take much searching to uncover virulent essays on not linking to "hate" sites.
"That lead to some measurements a lot of US or Canada residents deem extreme themselves, but AFAIK most European countries share Germanys current view because they themselves suffered under the Nazis during WWII and/or a communist dictatorship during the cold war. " Yes, Germany regulates political speech of unpopular parties, but most ECU states ban only Nazi-like parties; communists are not only acceptable but welcome (and continue to serve in the government). Seems mass murder is still okay if it's done for the good reason. Now if only the potential gun-toting, mass killing, high school students will form a union or religion, then they, too, can be banned and the Pinkertons will be on the side of Germans.
Since the U.N. has already declared Zionism to be a racism, the goal of this new U.N. program is clear. I urge everyone who opposes anti-semitism to oppose this new U.N. initiative. I hope this silly idea will die the same death as the U.N.'s plans to license reporters (so that unlicensed reporters could be deported or imprisoned). M_T