Most absurd cyber-ruling of the millenum!

The American law was done pretty much as a joke.

Dust off that vt100 emulator and head over to operagost.com for Reagan-era gaming!

If there's any stupidity in this court decision, you owe it to the fucking retards at UEJF.ORG, admire their fucking retarded home page with that ridiculous photo, it's entertaining. UEJF means French Jewish Students Union. They're a bunch of crybabies who want people to believe that THEY were in the concentration camps. Nevermind they're 20 year old and still covered with acnee. Anyway, voice your contempt on their online forum that they never read anyway.

The decision is not final, Yahoo is going to appeal, and AFAIK their legal argument was along the lines of "we can't do it" or "we're not responsible for it" (IE it's Yahoo, France that was sued when it's Yahoo, CA. that did it). For the appeal, I guess they will switch legal strategies; basically, the "law" invoked does'nt stand very well as it's only a government decret, whereas, per the constitution it should be a full fledged law as it restricts freedom of speech.

As for our friends at UEJF, let it be known that this bunch of losers are famous for suing like mad monkeys. They have sued the antiracist activist Costes when the incriminated work was, obviously and irrefutably so, sarcastic, a parody, etc ... (it said "give white women to arabs" or something).

A big bunch of whiney, arrogant losers. Let them know what you think. Call them at +33 1 47 34 62 00. Fill their forum with junk. They deserve all the shit they get.

--
Please be nice to me. I'm just an apprentice jerk.

Thanks to the tireless efforts of those rare individuals who challenge the impossible, we now know that we can do it. Alex Chiu knows this, and Alex Chiu is a shining example of the American capitalist motto, YOU CAN DO IT!™©

Just because you elitist, long haired socialist hippie open-source freaks think nothing can be accomplished unless it is free doesn't mean you can poop on the efforts of those gifted imagineers that dare to dream the impossible. I don't know what they teach you in those dens of homosexual debauchery known as British boarding schools, but here in the free world, A.K.A. US to the motherfuckin' A, they teach us three things:

1. You have the right to own a gun
2. You have the right to shoot anyone who says otherwise
3. The only good software is software YOU PAY FOR
4. YOU CAN DO IT!™©

That's the whole point... in France it is illegal to buy such things. There is nothing new about that.

If they have already been willing and able to place such restrictions on their own people, why are we surprised when they want to censor the Net ?

This kind of mentality is not really new anyway. The cold war was all about that really. Communism's vision of a classless society against capitalism's free market.

And also, I bet that if the US had been conquered by the Nazis in WWII, we'd all be required to buy Nazi propaganda.

"Game over, man! Game over!"

Hello? This is the country where you could succeed in a libel action based on the publication of a photograph, merely because a strap hanging from a saddle in the background could be seen hanging between plaintiff's legs Burton v Crowell Publishing. You might be correct that in regard to public figures the bar has been substantially raised by NYT v Sullivan.

1. You mean you're in the same century as the 1980's, but not the 1930s or 1960s. Man I know there are all these folks running around thinking they're already in the 21st Century, but what century do you think you're in? :P

2. Look, I'll cite Tuberville v Savage (1669) 86 ER 684 (which happens still to be good law in my jurisdiction), if it'll help me argue my case (though I'll conceed, it won't be of much help in a libel case). "Your caselaw is old" does not strike me as a particlarly convincing legal argument. Maybe you could try citing some newer stuff which shows how these cases have been overturned or modified.

3. To help you on your way: You might want to argue that Philadelhia Newspapers v Hepps 475 US 767 (1986) together with Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co 497 US 1 (1990), by displacing the common law 'fair comment' defence with a constitutional 'defence' of pure opinion (or at least opinion not implying false facts) + public concern, has raised the bar for plaintiffs in defamation actions. Against this (given the argument is about comparative restrictions on speech across national jurisdictions), you would also have to take into account the various modified 'comment' defences in different national jurisdictions. See for instance the exspansive 'comment' defence that arises from the wide meaning the Privy Council gave to 'public interest' and 'information' in reading a New South Wales statute; Austin v Mirror Newspapers [1986] AC 299; re s22 Defamation Act 1974 (NSW).

Further one has to consider other cross-jurisdictional impairments to free speech. In the US, for instance there still survive some species of tort which protect the privacy of individuals. Admitedly the tort of unreasonable publicization of private facts has probably been buried by Florida Star v BFJ 491 US 524 (1989), the tort of false light, on the other hand, would still seem to be afoot. Elsewhere in the common law world such protection of privacy is virtually unknown (see Kaye v Robertson ANOR [1991] FSR 62), though there have been some stirring in New Zealand Courts that such American torts might be developing there (esp. Tucker v New Media Ownership [1986] 2 NZLR 716)

4. I agree with you, the devil is in the detail.

ps. sorry to be such a pratt

heheheh... that was a good one.

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"
- George Clinton

Just read the other comments and get a clue.

Yes, child pornography is banned in the US. However, this is due to the fact that this represents the exploitation of minors (the fact that it's sick and degenerative tends to help people come up with legal rationalizations as to why it should be banned). Adult pornography is alive and well, despite the efforts of many who oppose it in moral grounds.

A closer analogy here in the US would be the Confederate flag. Any US citizen can fly this flag over their house if they so choose, as a demonstration of free speech. You could fly a Nazi flag, too, if you wanted (legally), but your neighbors might take the law into their own hands...

And before anybody starts yelling about South Carolina and the mess over them flying the Confederate flag, just remember that that represented a state institution sponsoring the promotion of Confederate ideals. Just like seperation of church and state, government bodies are held to a different standard than you or me. As a private citizen, I can fly any damn flag I want!

---
My Karma is so low I'm gonna come back as a turd.

--
The real decision 2000: whether "chad" or "recount" will replace "intern".

Yes.

The US government passed something called the Helms-Burton Law that made it possible for US citizens/businesses to sue foreigners if they did any business in Cuba. It also made it possible for the US to ban these foreign citizens (who have been to Cuba or done business there) from crossing into the USA.

I don't remember the outcome of this law; last I heard, it was being challenged at the International Courts in Geneva on the grounds that one soverign nation cannot enact laws that affect the citizens of another soverign nation (specifically, the ability of private citizens of the US to sue a Canadian/Brazilian/whatever).

sad bastard

>It kind of makes sense [...] Now imagine if our country had been taken over by Hitler about 50 years ago; I think the government wouldn't be too fond of Nazi memorabilia.
In fact, this law isn't a follow-up of WW2. It has been voted in 1937, after a failed coup d'état by fascist leagues, to prevent fascist and nazi propaganda.

For french speaking people out there, you could look at what we think of it here, on a french Slashdot-like forum. The main feeling is that this ruling is stupid.

What have the Romans ever done for us?

Just translate it to English. That would probably piss them off sufficiently.

This is NOT the government. This is a judge.

Now, try and tell me no American judge has ever blurted out a completely stupid and ridiculous judgment.

Heh.
-- Colin

subsolar
--- If ignorance is no excuse under the law, then why do ignorant people write laws? - sanepsycho

Yes I was kidding : the UETF is one of the student organisation well known to pertain to the "sue-all-those-non-kosher-bastards" dept.

But I read the /. posts again, and the points I was trying to make just did not make it to North-American ears. So let me rephrase the serious part of my e-mail.

About the french government making some move to censorship. One of the most promeniment part of the 5th french republic constitution is the separation of powers . The various chambers (deputy and senate) are making and changing the laws. The government is responsible to decide how and when the laws are going to be applied. The judge are their to see that the law are enforced properly.

This means that the french governement has (theoretically at least) no influence on the judgement.

Another really important thing is that the french system is relying far less on precedent (jurisprudence) that the US one . This means that this technically clueless judgment his going to have far less importance if the appeals fails that I would have had into the US.

That would be the first such case, granted, but that would not establish a precedent, jurisdictionally speaking.

A sad note now : I did not realize that, on /. so much people had such basic anti-french attitude, and that so much french had so anti-american attitude. I just want to remember anybody that despising someone because he was born (and could not help it) somewhere is just the beginning of nazism.

I will now browse /. at a +1 treshold, thus missing the numerous interesting anonymous posts. But at least some crap will be filetred out. I think we really need to do something about the moderation system.

The first link is to an article about about the Germans trying to get US isps to refuse to host any nazi material. France kind of seems reasonable in comparision.

http://www.cnn.com/ 200 0/TECH/computing/08/29/hate.sites.idg/

http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/06/germany.neonazi.ap/

http://w ww. cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/08/12/germany.extremism/index.html

You should read this book, it tells what actually happened, from a non-imperialist viewpoint:

Another View of Stalin

P 2 P___H U M O R

P 2 P___H U M O R

Have a little respect? I have no respect for any government that doesn't respect basic rights for its citizens. I see no reason to not try to help citizens of other countries have the same rights which we, at least nominally, have.

Freedom to buy and sell is basically freedom of speech.

Right... and political donations, they're speech too.

I think not, especially when these donations drown my speech or the speech of political parties I favor or think should have a voice.

We regulate commerce up, down and sideways. The idea that trade is speech or political donations are speech is merely propaganda.

This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. Under that ruling, it's perfectly ok for a totalitarian regime to bar access of its citizens to basic political information, foreign newspapers, etc. This gives legitimacy to suppression of fundamental freedoms and I think sets a dangerous precedent.

Have you metamoderated today?

> This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. <

Right, this is an important distinction. Barring people from actually making purchases of certain items might (or might not) be one thing, but barring them from simply viewing certain classes of items is dangerous. Moreover, I think this particular stand by France, may put France -- a member country of the OSCE -- at odds with the Helsinki Final Act (see also, for good measure, the French-language text), the document that lays out some of that organization's fundamental principles.

The participating states -- including France -- made it

"their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds, to encourage co-operation in the field of information and the exchange of information with other countries" ...

Of course the particular intentions don't specifically mention the internet, but then this dates back to 1975; certainly seems to go against the spirit of the document, and probably against a number of later commitments under international law.

Right, it's okay to view child porn or snuff films, as long as you don't buy them.

Not.

mp

"Remember -- We don't football sex bowling until you pizza."

But of course, almighty America would not let Thailand do that and would put economic pressure on them...
But then I guess it helps to be the "police of the world" and have the implicit right to decide what is right to show and what is not.

I'll agree on Nazi auctions and stuff, as soon as the US accept to suppress all censorship! Including drugs, sex and other non-politically-correct-stuff.

I agree that limiting freedom of speech is a *BAD* thing but then, stick to it all the way.

Black holes occur when God divides by zero.

As repellent as I think child porn is, I'm not in favor of laws trying to ban the viewing of it. I am in favor of prosecuting those creating it, if they abused actual children in creating it. The problem nowadays is that it's possible to take a child's picture from an innocent context and turn it into a pornographic image using an image editor. Laws have been passed that have attempted to get around this by banning images that even apprear to be that of a child in a pornographic context. That would mean it would be a felony to possess or distribute certain types of anime, for example. I don't think we ought to be going to those lengths, as then we're prosecuting thought crimes.

Why are you picking on Thailand? Do you think Thais are particularly likely to create child porn? That seems like a bigoted attitude.

Have you metamoderated today?

The freedom to conduct trade in a free market without being subject to ideological content restrictions touches on both privacy rights and free speech.

Personally, I think banning ideas is just as ugly as Nazism because it invariably leads to the same thing -- banning entire classes of people. Moreover, banning ideas creates the impression of weakness, and rightly so, for it betrays a lack of confidence in the power of democracy and the free exchange of ideas.

I wish I could wrap up with a snide remark about French judges, but we've got some of our own who are just as stupid. To their credit, at least the French legal system isn't terrified that civilization could be toppled by exposed nipples like the American courts are.

--
Geek-friendly webhosting: http://www.sfmedia.net

Criminals shouldn't be allowed to profit from their crimes by selling their stories or artefacts of their exploits. I believe some US states prohibit people convicted of felonies from making money from this way. So, the concept is not unheard of in the US.

Furthermore, purchasing memorabilia is more of a behavior than a right. Education, self expression, nourishement and shelter, these are rights. The French have, quite rightly IMHO (or not so HO), have decided that the rights of survivors, memories of victums, and contemporary minorities out weigh those of Nazi enthusiasts (to put it kindly).

I'm all for banning hate speech, in the interest of the constitutional rights of minorities and sensibly minded denizens.

Translation:
The French have, quite naturally, have decided that they can best bury their complicity with the Nazis by acting as indignant as possible whenever faced with issues tangental to the Nazi era.

...you didn't put your snide comments aside after all...

That's not a translation of what I said, that's an interpretation of history.

Regarding memorabilia, no one is rallying around Napoleonic gear in order to push dubious political agendas as happens with the Nazi stuff.

As far as freedom of speech, you are quite incorrect: I'm all for giving up hate speech, not free speech. The distinction isn't always clear, but we as homo sapiens are extremely good and fine distinctions.

Move to France? No, not France. I'd move to Australia tomorrow if I could. But it'd be a favor (or should I say favour) to me, not the likes of you.

Good points. In particular,

You can't ban hate speech and give up free speech, as the people that define hate speech have the power to silence anyone they don't like...

This is a real danger.

However, France and other countries, including Australia I believe, address the issue of hate speech with legislation, with some laws taking a more extreme position than others. And I stand by the principle that we are obligated to consider the rights of all groups and individuals when we determine how to implement ideals such as freedom of speech, which I do in fact embrace.

At this point I'd like to say the exchange of ideas in this forum, which I value greatly, is more interesting when participants address the issues and not resort to character assasinations.

Thanks for the post.

They are referring to the sinking of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior by French intelligence. I think it occurred while the Rainbow Warrior was docked at a New Zealand port. A photographer was killed in the explosion.

In the end, the event actually worked to Greenpeace's favour as they received international attention and empathy. The Rainbow Warrior was replaced almost immediately through donations and the French were left with egg on their face.

New Zealand, as you can imagine, was not amused.

Well, if you want to discuss about stupid intelligence (isn't it funny ?), we can talk about CIA putting Pinochet to avoid a (legally elected) communist presidence in south america. Or about CIA financiating pakistanish Talibans. Or trying to put back the dictatorial Shah in Iran, only strengthening the islamical revolution in doing so because he was really despised. Or about bringing Mobutu in Congo/Zaire, only to get pissed when this despot finally prefered france. Or... You get the point ?

Collecting Napoleonic memorabilia is fine, because although he slaughtered millions, it was all in the name of mother France.

While you are an extremely intelligent, gregarious individual with varied interests and a penchant for dialogue.

No, I cannot respect censorship, in whatever form it is disguised. Real freedom means everyone should be free to do anything, even things I may not personnally approve, as long as they are not criminal actions per se.

>The French law that prohibits selling those items really says "well, collaboration with Nazism was an embarrassing thing in France, so let's pretend it never existed, OK?"
Except this law was voted in 1937. Two years before WW2.

I know that there's a long love-hate relation between France and USA, which is only a continuation of the love-hate relation between France and England; but it's not a reason to transform facts for the sheer joy of insulting.

~moofbong

~moofbong

If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro', what is the opposite of 'progress'?

Briefly, they can regulate, because Yahoo! operates in France, and it's French subsidiary (Yahoo France) falls under French law. Effectively, the French courts are saying "Hey, if you Americans want to operate in our country, you will have to-a respect our legislations, oui!!"

This is actually old news (note the date on the article) and has been watched with extreme interest by those of us who have an interest in the legal issues surrounding the Internet (things like liability, data protection legislation, legal authority, etc.). It may turn out to be an interesting legal precendent.

D.

Nice theory. Unfortunately, the UK government has a fairly effective way of suppressing unwanted TV channels on satellite, known as a "proscription" order: they make it directly illegal for any company subject to UK law (any company with an office in the UK) to advertise with that channel, as well as making advertising the channel in the UK illegal, and selling access to that channel. Oh, and they make it a criminal offence to possess videotapes which haven't been censored by the British Board of Film Censorship (now renamed "Classification", but the function's the same).

In theory, Yahoo could just put two fingers up to the court. In practice, that would cost them all their revenue from any multinational advertising with them (Coca Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Mars) - European governments have become pretty good at suppressing free speech.

No, they put on a bunch of Nike swishes, which have grown so common that we don't even notice them anymore.

Swearing in front of children is illegal (cant exactly remember the case/details)

This I agree is not good. It's been upheld by one court in one instance, though in general laws against swearing are never enforced.

I think I might know which case might be addressed here. Some nitwit fell out of a canoe, and when he returned to the surface, let loose with a long constant (and I mean constant) string of profanities, I believe even after said mother with child asked him to stop.

Take the NOSPAM out of my address if you're responding by mail..

Your statement smacks of moral relativism. If the French were protecting the exercise of (!an imaginary!) right of French citizens to eat Americans, I rather doubt you would continue to assert that ...others can not be judged by our standards... Of course, any American stupid enough to go to France under those conditions would simply be improving the local gene pool. Did you respect the rights of Pinochet's regime to 'vanish' it's own citizens?

My opinion remains just that. I'm not suggesting that the French gov should bend it's laws to suit the US's standards (or mine). I can opine that the French government has a long history of paternalistic (dare I say Statist?) policies without expecting or asking the French to alter those policies.

Although the US has it's failings, it remains preferable to the alternatives as they are demonstrated elsewhere. Further, I deplore the US's failings quite a bit more than those of another nation because I expect better from this gov.

If the French wish to collectively stick their heads in the sand, wish away the rest of the big bad world and dream of better times (for France) more power to 'em.

The other question is if Yahoo knows what they are sending at all. They should have their auctions catagorized and therfore know.

The best they can be expected to do is to not knowingly transmit this memorabilia to France. To not even try would be rude. To err, would only be common carrier.

If the French have a problem with their laws, they should change them or leave. This kind of suppression only glamorizes that crap and makes it seem more valuable, but that's not my bussiness. Now if someone wants to limit what I see and hear, they can go to hell.

Companies that ignore the will and laws of other nations can expect great hatred. Sure, it's not Yahoo's problem or mine, yet but it can be tommorow when someone decides to retaliate in meat space.

We don't like Marcel Marceau, so you can't transmit any programs with him in it.

--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
Klick here for Kaplan.

--
Deviancy depends on how you define the norm.

This convention will have very profound impact on the 'net (and ecommerce in particular), as jurisdictional matters on the 'net are such a tossup. For more info see the Consumer Project on Technology's page on the Hague Convention.

They can't. To apply, this ruling (not sure it's really the correct word) must be approved by a USAn juge. If this ruling finally apply, you will be able to criticize your own juge's stupidity. After all, they demonstrated all their skills in this matter in the DVD/DeCSS stuff.

By the way, a little known fact is that American submarines rely in a large part on French sonar technology. This should make the nukes somewhat more unpredictable...

-- Colin

Unless you are French, you don't have any gripe in this regard. Though the Internet is "global", that doesn't mean that all local laws should be thrown out to make way for the Universal American Truth(tm). America has already done enough to homogenize and sterilize world cultures.

Forget the technical issues for a moment. Let the French make their own laws, as ridiculous as they may seem. If they don't want Nazi memorabilia as part of their culture, then so be it. More power to them. Censorship may be Unamerican, but we are talking about France after, which to my knowledge has never signed on and pledged to uphold the constitution of the U.S.A. Let it go.

If they don't want Nazi memorabilia as part of their culture, then so be it.

That would be fine, except they are asking an American company to control the behavior of their own citizens. Yahoo is not forcing themselves onto their computers, the citizens are choosing to go there.

If France wants to make it a crime to visit the US Yahoo, then fine, make it a crime. But it's not up to us to enforce it.

--
Those who hate 'vi' do not understand 'vi'.

But this case is about the French trying to exercise control over an international corporation; instead of sucking it up and going after the French who buy Nazi materials, they're going after the seller. Bah, humbug.

And don't pull that collective memory bullshit, either. Massive guilt over the collaboration of some 50 years past is not, to my knowledge, a basis for broad, sweeping legislation against the international community. How many people alive in France today were alive during WWII?

The internet is now officially screwed. Whatever happens with this case, a nasty precedent has been set for any and every government.

And, by the way, what's up with that crappy babel-fish translation? "...an offense to the collective memory of a nation profoundly murdered by atrocities". This statement shouldn't be nearly as funny as it sounds. Anybody have a link to the French?

"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh.

Before French citizens can access anything on the internet, they must first be licensed by their government and then the site they are going to visit must also approve of a French visitor coming to see the site's content.

I truly understand the very logical reasoning behind France's objection to auctioning off Hate paraphenalia, but I feel a bit more secure knowing it is occuring in the open where this behavior can be noted and used as an example than hidden. Because you know that moment it is outlawed at least three sites will pop up (members.tripod.com/naziauction) to fill the demand. What's worse is these sites will operate without the watchful eye of ADL or other HateWatch groups.

Welcome to the global economy France. You either play along or become extinct.

It costs a dollar and is called Weaselicious, what more do you want?

"I can only show you Linux... you're the one who has to read the man pages."
falser

So what? It says that not only is Yahoo expected to filter it's packets (at it's own trouble and expence) but to pay a fine!

Yahoo is primarily a US company. The french-based Yahoo has already complied to French law. You think the American-based servers should to? What's France going to do if Yahoo simply says "No."? Stomp thier feet? What if Yahoo simply pulls up stakes and moves thier Paris office to London? Or closes it all together and handles things from thier home office?

France has no authority to demand anything from US web sites. If they want to block content from reaching thier land, well that's thier own problem not Yahoo's.

People get all upset if American polititions think they rule the Internet But it's OK if France does it?

-Andy

P.S. : If elected President I'll pass a law that says all French servers must play "The Star Spangled Banner" on thier internal speakers every time they serve a page to an American IP.

You can ask all you like, but the US goverment isn't likely to be impressed. It's not as if Yahoo is purposly directing this stuff towards France. It's primarily (like it or not) a by Americans for Americans service.

People in France are ignoring the french Yahoo and going right to the American one, and requesting this stuff(which incidentaly isn't pro-nazi, it's simply nazi artifacts. Museum pieces.).

So France is going to ask the US to cut back on it's own citizens freedom of speach because the French don't like what they hear but listen anyway? Not likely.

Besides, the media would have a field day with it. This would fit into thier French stereotypes nicely.

Besides what about neo-nazi shortwave stations? You must be able to pick some of those up from where you are. What's the French Goverment going to do about them?

-Andy

What if America passed a law outlawing the French language? Would all French servers suddenly have to stop serving to the US? Would the ones that didn't imediatly install packet-filtering software be fined? Would they pay the fines?

What if some Americans used a proxy or other method to access those french-language sites? Would the sites be again elligible for fines?(or worse?)

-Andy

y'know, now that I think of that, this might not be a bad idea at all. Imagine the headlines:

French Judge declares Planet Earth both Offensive and Illegal

.

"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem"
(as seen on a bulletin board in Fermi lab)

_ _ _ _ _

Check out the Vinny the Vampire comic strip

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that blocking IPs by region was in its infancy, at best. And now this lunatic is ordering Yahoo to essentially wave a magic IP wand, and make all the nasty Nazi paraphernalia go away.

The French used to scare me, thanks to their insistence on continued nuclear testing in the Pacific. Now they terrify me-- if this man is any indication of how far out of touch with reality their government is, we could be in for a whole heap of trouble.

Five tons of flax.

I agree with your post, but equating a government with a judiciary could make you look ideutic.

Ideuts all around

France should simply require their providers there to filter out connections to ebay. Why is it ebay's problem if France has some silly laws allowing censorship? Are they a French company? :P

A) It's Yahoo, not Ebay.

Whoops. I'm dumb.

B) Yahoo does have offices and employees in France, so to a certain degree they are a French company.

However, the part of Yahoo *in* France (or at least, the part they're intended to see) is not at issue here, it's the part of Yahoo in the US. to wit, from the story:

Even though the content is not accessible from www.yahoo.fr/ the ruling insists that even "the visualization in France of these objects" on the www.yahoo.com auction site constitutes a breach of French law and orders Yahoo to bar all French IPs from accessing it despite Yahoo's assertions that this would not guarantee that nobody in France would be able to see it."

Once again, France wants to make people not even under its jurisdiction responsible for enforcing its laws for it. This is completely inappropriate no matter how you slice it. Even if I did goof up on the yahoo/ebay thing. Guess that just shows how much mindshare ebay holds...

An Example:

Here in Boston about two years ago a college student at MIT died from drinking too much. (Voluntarily or In-Voluntarily leave for the courts to decide) So our well meaning General Court, and "officials" in Cambridge and Boston, legislated "tougher" standards on under aged drinking. From what I can tell it hasn't changed a thing beyond making a few politicians sleep better at night, and creating a few more pages of laws.

But whereas Yahoo! Inc. is capable of identifying the geographical origin of the site which is visited, as from the IP address of the caller, which therefore should provide them with the means to prohibit surfers calling from France, by whatever means are appropriate, from accessing the services and sites to be viewed on screens in France, and in some cases tele-discharging and reproduction of the contents, or of any other initiative justified by the nature of the site visited, will be susceptible of receiving in France, a criminal qualification and/or constitute a manifestly illegal nuisance within the meaning of article 808 and 809 of the New Code of Civil Procedure, which is manifestly the case of the exhibition of uniforms, insignia, emblems reminiscent of those which worn or exhibited by the Nazis;

I guess the judge must nogt have heard of proxies. You know proxies? Those things that some countries require ISPs to have to censor content?

Furthermore, what if we told you that your laws are in violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution? Would you feel in any way compelled to change them?

We thought not. Point proven.

"Game over, man! Game over!"

Take the NOSPAM out of my address if you're responding by mail..

Trying to force Yahoo! to comply to their local laws seems equally as dumb as the whole iCraveTV fiasco (as iCraveTV, based in Canada, were complying to the Canadian telecommunication laws by rebrodcasting television caught with an antenna). The US is free to set up a nationwide firewall, also.

Gack! I hate people !!

-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
it's love's illusions i recall. i really don't know love at all

If the french government wishes to enforce their laws on the internet, the only really justified manner (besides ensuring that domestic content is complient) would be to set up a nationwide firewalling system to block out non-complient sites

And then scream in frustration when encrypted VPNs start leaking through the firewall faster than water through a sieve. To bad there isn't a general clause in ALL constitutions/charters that a law has to be practically enforceable before being allowed on the books (imagine the court cases THAT would cause...)

This may be true but I don't recall getting any support last week, when I said it was wrong of the US to try to force their trade embargo of Cuba on the rest of the world.

-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...
it's love's illusions i recall. i really don't know love at all

Seriously, how can the french gov't have ANY say over a company located in another country? They can prevent them from doing business in france, (maybe revoke yahoo.fr?), but other than that...I personally hope yahoo just blows them off.

You know the Nazis had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear. -P. Gibbons

Is this really a problem that needs to be handled by the content provider?

For example, if I am the publisher of Penthouse magazine (which I'm not), and 7-11 decides that its patrons shouldn't be exposed to my content, it isn't my responsibility to police who my magazines are shipped to. It's the responsiblity of 7-11.

If the French government doesn't want its citizens to view Nazi items, then that's their choice (and hence, their problem). It's not something that should burden Yahoo.

Does this mean that if /. is banned in China, /. has to spend time and money making sure their content isn't displayed there? I think not.

Oh...I know -- let's ignore the past. That will make everything much better.

--
Ever wonder what happens when you attach model rocket engines to toy trucks?

It's stuff like this that makes me happy that we have (although biased) a free press that although it may be unpopular, we can talk freely about things, and that in these days of electoral re-counts and court mandates, that we the people still have some say in what we can or cannot do.

We should take a moment and respectfully remember the rights that the framers of the U.S. Constitution put in place for us.

I have gone to look for myself. If I should return before I get back, keep me here.

It would make a lot more sense for the French government to install censorware rather than make Yahoo! do it. They are putting an unfair burden on a corporation, to enforce morals that don't make sense (aren't we supposed to learn from the past?)

Also, shouldn't the French government also have to block out sites like Anonymizer? It would seen to me that if they didn't, they would try to hold Yahoo! liable for it. That wouldn't be fair to Yahoo! because it is would be impossible for Yahoo! to block every redirect surfer on the net.

• After 2 months, yahoo said it could not guess the origin of all IP addresses
• The judge asked a expert panel (including Vint Cerf) to find what were the technical solutions available
• The conclusions from this panel were that the best solution was to filter out .fr ISP (about 60% of french connections), ask the user about his natinality for the other ISPs, and filter him based on what he said. If this is to be considered by the judge as the best attempt to follow this french law, the story could very well end here.

...how the French feel compelled to silence history by sacrificing liberty?

How can these be the same people who fashioned that proud lady in New York's harbor?

Have they learned nothing? The most powerful weapons the Nazi's possessed were not fashioned of steel and gunpowder, but crafted of words. Words that carefully rewrote history in the minds of their people. They so realized the power of this weapon that they quickly moved against those who offered words of truth or opposition.

The French are starting down a dangerous path that may leave their view of history distorted and risk having their children relive the tragedies and evils of the past.

"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency

You completely misunderstand the issue, but that's not so strange since you've not been brought up in these parts. Nazi propaganda and Nazi memoribilia have been outlawed in many European countries since shortly after the second world war. And with good reason: right from the word "go" all those with dubious sympathies during the war began questioning and denying the very real horrors of teh second world war. So those denials were outlawed, as were memoribilia of the Nazis, to try and prevent a second wave of that murderous idiocy.

Now you Americans immediately lament the loss of freedom of speech, but it never dawns on you that there is no such thing as absolute freedom, unless you're the last person on earth. Freedom is always a balance between the freedoms of all the individuals involved. And after the horrors of the second world war Europe said: "Never again!".

The French are starting down a dangerous path that may leave their view of history distorted and risk having their children relive the tragedies and evils of the past.

Not so, the true scope of the second world war is taught on every European school, and certqainly the French schools. But not the lies some ouwld-be Nazi's would like to believe. You hold much by "And justice for all." These laws are firstly and foremostly to ensure justice for those who were the victims of the Nazi regime.

Never forget, never belittle.

Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
-but NONE to be offended by them.(The Midnight Skulker,BC)

---
an image had better be worth a 1000 words-- it takes longer to download.

(this message posted from my D

Okay. If *anyone* here can sew together a Nazi uniform for a GI Joe action figure or something, you *need* to do it, and you *need* to put it up on Yahoo Auctions.

I dunno. In France, do the judges wear silly wigs like the British? There must be some sort of attire that can be comfortably merged with a red swastika armband as a freedom of speech protest.

Damned socialists.

Go for it. I'd consider that to be freedom of expression. Have a party.

At the same time, however, recognize that I'll post that picture I have of you banging a sheep.

Socialism is evil, like communism, it doesn't work. France is a socialist country. And *I* live in a socialist country.

If you want to be taxed all to hell to pay for silly protectionist policies and the stupidity of the proles, that's fine with me: just leave me the hell out of it.

I prefer a capitalism, which rewards those who work hard, and punishes laziness.

This is, alas, the usual response to this sort of cruft. Don't go after the problem, go after someone/something else...

Just think of the preposterous attitude towards Cuba

If the French government thought this one through, they could earn a tremendous amount from the "taxation" of speech on the Internet. Their fines aren't nearly high enough to dissuade global media companies from doing whatever they want.

Witness the actual fines levied against Yahoo! (From Juriscom.net):

Condemns Yahoo! Inc. to pay to LICRA the amount of 10,000 Francs on the basis of article 700 of the New \code of Civil Procedure;

* Mad Cow (disease)
 - - -
Inanimate Carbon Rod thanks you for your support. See you in 2004!
F0 0F C7 C8

Burn Hollywood Burn

Okay, If the French courts or government want to stop their citizens from accessing Yahoo, let them go at it. Let them censor their net access until the cows come home, but why must they insist that Yahoo do this?

If Yahoo France has a physical presense within the country, then I see no problem with rulings and regulations of them, but for a French court to order Yahoo Inc. to do ANYTHING is absurd. If they truly feel that something needs to be done, let the French Government order all French ISPs (which are probably government owned anyway) to block access to Yahoo and any other offensive content they wish.

With the global nature of the Internet, and with vastly different standards of legal / illegal speach, the only sane way to handle the debate of "illegal content" vs "legal content" is for each country to say what kind of content can be physically hosted within its borders, and what is legal/illegal for people within their borders to view.

Hopefully, Yahoo, Inc. will have the backbone to fight this stupidity... I mean, what if it is also against French law to say that the French Government is a bunch of IDIOTS?? Now, I am an American citizen and I have posted this statement to a site hosted in the US from a computer located within the US... Who here would argue that it would be just for a French Court to find me guilty of that crime. IDIOTS... ya hear that? IDIOTS!!!!. There, see you in 5 to 10.

Note that the French court was not banning the Yahoo pages in question for all internet users, just French users. This is perfectly within the jurisdiction of national courts; in this sense Internet is not any more special than other media, such as the TV, radio, or newspapers. There would be no big outcry if French courts would forbid the New York Times, for instance, from publishing such material in France -- even though the New York Times is based in the US (for New Yorkers: that includes the area outside city limits).

I think the problem people have with the ruling (apart from the usual reflexive furriner-bashing in any US-vs-Europe story), is that it is a lot easier for a newspaper to enforce a publishing ban in a given country ( just don't , to quote Nike), than it is for a dot com company, given the technical structure of the internet.

forbid the New York Times, for instance, from publishing such material in France

But Yahoo Inc isn't publishing anything in France. Yahoo.fr removed the links, so its only being published in the US. The media in this case is irrelevant. Be it TV, Newspaper, radio, or the Internet. This is a Government trying to impose restrictions on a foreign company on the chance that one of its citizens might see something considered by some to be offensive.

If I were Yahoo Inc. I would refuse to obey. If the issue was pressed, just close up shop in France. If they don't want to lose the advertising revenue, setup something like fr.yahoo.com as opposed to yahoo.fr. Then see how far the Gov't of France can go with it.

I mean imagine that you start a business. You're selling harmless doodads. Then, a foreign country sends you a registered letter saying that you must ban all people from our country from seeing your website. Would you comply?

I'm not very good at spelling, and I don't care!

Well this is the first time I've heard of a dot com site being visible only in the US. yahoo.fr and yahoo.com are domain names and have nothing to do with location. The machines hosting the dot com and the dot fr sites could be sitting in Timbuktu for all it matters. What matters is that the dot com site is visible in France and the French authorities say that it is Yahoo's responsibility to make sure it isn't. The site name itself means squat. Whether this is reasonable is another matter; I don't think so personally, but the judge has ruled otherwise.

If I were Yahoo Inc. I would refuse to obey. If the issue was pressed, just close up shop in France. If they don't want to lose the advertising revenue, setup something like fr.yahoo.com as opposed to yahoo.fr. Then see how far the Gov't of France can go with it.

The name is irrelevant. fr.yahoo.com, yahoo.org, yahoo.co.uk -- you name it, it doesn't matter. The ruling is irrelevant as far as domain names go, because -- get this -- a domain is not the same thing as a country. Re-registering your site to another domain name is not the same thing as crossing state lines. Registering a site to a dot br domain, for instance, does not make a US company Brazilian all of a sudden -- it remains USan, and subject to US law. The main jurisdictional problem is that Yahoo is a US company, and thus subject to US law, not French law -- unless they wish to do business in France. Domain names have nothing to do with it. This leaves Yahoo with two choices: do nothing, and hope the trouble of dragging this through to the WTO is too bothersome for the French; or comply;

The fact that this information is stored on a server located in the US is the only relevant fact. It does get a bit ify since Yahoo does have an office in France, however, I think Yahoo did all that could be expected by removing the links from yahoo.fr.

A foreign country cannot force a website hosted in another country to remove content. If this was true, there would be a lot fewer sites out there. Think of all the porn sites out there, especially those that deal with child porn, beastiality, etc. In a lot of countries, this is illegal. However, since they are often hosted from sites where this is legal, there is nothing that can be done to remove this, since it is published in a country where the laws allow this type of content. Where its visible from is irrelevant.

I'm not very good at spelling, and I don't care!

We simply need to have yahoo put a big button up on it's site to get in, asking: "Are you french?" (Yes/No). If they answer No, then everything is fine. If they answer yes, then it takes them to pokemon.com or something.

If you can believe it, yahoo offered this concession to the French. The French version of yahoo doesn't have the nazi stuff. The French court said that this did not go far enough, and that the English site must also block out French users.

What have the Romans ever done for us?

It costs a dollar and is called Weaselicious, what more do you want?

• Sever as much contact with the outside world as possible, so that it can regulate all content comming to it's people. (a.k.a. the China approach)
• Take over the rest of the world, so that it rules all, and can impose it's laws everywhere as it sees fit.
• Learn to live with it the way it is, somehow.

Isn't this obvious to the french?

They can't fix it. But an impromptu petition like this is the best way to get the fuss into the news and enact some probable change.

they're still amateurs compared to the austrailian parliment though

I'm told in some parts of the world it is illegal to even mention the hollocust ... does anyone know if this is true?

I'm told in some parts of the world it is illegal to even mention the holocaust ... does anyone know if this is true?

When one go to a museum that shows what the Nazi did, it's hard to stick to the great principles. Even though I'm for free speech, I can not blame them for being sensitive to Nazi's artifact and the memory those brings.

I don't think that it's fair to say that they re-writting history because of that!

Burn Hollywood Burn

It costs a dollar and is called Weaselicious, what more do you want?

"The good thing about Alzheimer's is that you can hide your own Easter eggs."
- Don't remember

Say you have a program, like Windows Update, that were to update based on your geographical location by IP (as is sanctioned, for example, in international encryption issues). All a person is doing when they change their IP is fucking up the system.

Personally, I say let them shut out French IPs. Hell, shut the French out of the whole goddamn web. Maybe then, they won't see the "Nazi" images they are touting.

Please. Get a life, pull your head out of the sand, and never judge a book by its cover. Did I mention that when your head is in the sand, your butt sticks in the air like a moron?

Software designers are so infatuated with the fact that they can, that they don't stop to think if they should.

How can you take seriously a country that, on one hand, maintains itself as the birth of modern European democracy and on the other hand enforces censorship on this level?

French nationalism is dangerous. Language laws and culture laws abound, but in the end, they do support a liberal democracy and it is their misguided concept of prohibiting nazi symbology from reaching the masses that leads them to these mistakes. Hatred isn't a symbol, it is a cultural value. Destroy the symbol, the hatred remains. To destroy hatred, you must wither the root. The Nazi paraphenalia being auctioned is but a side-effect of the hatred.

It costs a dollar and is called Weaselicious, what more do you want?

I am the Raxis.
echo 'cm9vdEBqcmF4aXMuY29tCg==' | base64 -d

Yahoo's failure to see this is one of the shortcomings of having a global communication device (the internet, obviously) while we still have borders and different laws for different regions of the world. The bonus to this sort of fight is that it might, if egos allow, begin to break down the borders worldwide and move to a global government with the same rights for everyone. I have my doubts though.

TheGeek
http://www.geekrights.org

Not necessary. You can use a non-French proxy if you have accesss to one, or you could even get an account at Anonymizer for $15 per quarter. (Anonymizer even lets you surf for free if you feel like putting up with the delay). This ruling isn't going to prevent anyone who seriously wants access to this material from seeing it. What's most perturbing is that a judge felt he had the ability/authority/right to do so.

After having read the English translation of the Judge's decision, it's not clear to me why Yahoo! was selected as the perpetrator of these crimes, when there are so many entities involved:

• The French "surfer"
• The French telco
• The French ISP
• The backbone provider (MCI/Sprint/etc.)
• Yahoo!
• The seller who posted the material

Are they just the biggest, shiniest non-French target?

The most sesible and cost effective solution for yahoo may be probably to adopt the most restrictive legal standarts in the rich world. The loss of income from Nazi propaganda will be smaller than the combined cost of selective cesorship and litigation.

This may seem not so bad to many non Americans who lack the absolute 1st Ammendment commitment. But, ask yourself, what will happen when a country with an important enough market tries to impose restrictions than no democraticly inclined person can tolerate ( No sale of nativity scenes in China?) As much as I understand French consternation, i believe that the benefits of a legally unified Internet are greater than the loss to France's ability to effictively censor what it considers reprehensible. I thus suggest that such issues are better not left to national courts to resolve at all.

The Internet is global, and it would thus be apropriate to seek relief from the French ruling in a number of global venues that may be more sympathetic to yahoo, such as the WTO, and the EU supreme court. Since mosts losses from such rulings will be incurred by US based companies, it might be possible to get some positive US bullying at these institutions, with the apropriate lobbying.

Most likely, we will see countries pushing more and more for effective censorship. And I predict that most big corporations, including yahoo, vill just cave in. There is not enough money in being controversial. The pursuit of global standards of openness and access are thus left to NGOs like the FSF (and all of us ;-).

as an adage, I believe that Nazzi memorabilia and its prohibition in Europe both serve a very worthy goal, reminding yet another generation that the road to hell is just one right turn away.

-- look, cheese ahoy!

Well, For starters, would you REALLY want the government of Communist China to be able to put you on trial just because you posted something critical of their government here in the US? After all, just because saying that China has a corrupt government is legal here in the States, it does not mean that it's legal in China.

If we were to say that if something is illegal somewhere in the world that it should be removed from the net, we might as well pull the plug on all of it.

I'm sorry, I just can't agree. First of all, you can't really compare the two restrictions of rights - America restricts the rights to see nudity and drink alchol from all minors. Once you're of age, have at it! Download porn off the internet, get those smutty DVDs, watch Pay-Per-View sex show. Have a beer and watch a porno - go ahead. You can do that. The reason that the definition of porn is so broad so that even artistic nudity is considered pornographic (or is it? There is a nice "old world" map at my former highschool that definately has a prominant naked women in it) is that the most vocal against porn are just that crazy. And most people don't want to come out in favor of porn. ("See, he thinks that a women's naked brest is OK for our children to see! He supports pornography!" instead of "he supports basic rights to freedom of speach." It's easy to take more rational thinking about what is pornography out of context so it becomes political suicide to go for laxing restrictions.)

The official reason that TV and radio is censored is that children can view it without restriction. (That's where all this internet filtering fun comes from too.) Many people feel that we should "protect" the "impressionable youth" (and then bitch about the apathy of said youth later - hmmm... let's think a bit...).

Blocking out Nazi artifacts (that's really what they are - historical artifacts) to all people is just stupid. I could see an argument against letting younger children view - it mostly involves the "impressionable youth" bit again - but against anyone? It's just stupid. There's also the "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" bit. Ignoring it doesn't solve anything. I'd rather live in a nation that censors content with the intent to proect only minors so that once you're "of age" you can view without restrictions, rather than one that assumes everyone is better off without being able to see Nazi material. But to each their own - if you think being able to see nudity is more important than learning about the past, why not? It's not my place to judge. I just would rather live in America.

I think you got a few things wrong:

America restricts the rights to see nudity and drink alchol from all minors.

And all majors as well, to a degree. Can you see people having sex at 3:00 PM on any public station anywhere in the USA? Can you buy beer on Sunday in Georgia?

Once you're of age, have at it! Download
porn off the internet, get those smutty DVDs, watch Pay-Per-View sex show.

Except that lawmakers have traditionally tried to heavily regulate that as well. There are still laws on the books regulating how, with whom, and with what devices you are allowed to have sex.

The official reason that TV and radio is censored is that children can view it without restriction.

But the real reason that TV and radio is censored is because people want to use the law as a club to beat up the things that they think are immoral.

So while I agree with the spirit of your post, I feel like some of the details are not quite correct. America is still very backward when it comes to sex. Spend a few weeks (or hell, even a few days) in Amsterdam and you'll see what I mean.
--- "Dare not to be in agony, but in truffles!"

That was suprising for me to find out when I first moved here. It pissed me off royally. The thing is, you can buy buy from a restaurant, just not at the grocery store. The government of Georgia encourages drinking and driving, because they won't let you buy your beer and take it home, they force you to go out if you want to drink.

This is only one of many stupid laws in this state, and this country. We live in a land of stupidity. I live in Atlanta right now after moving here a few months ago. During that time, I've had quite a few bad things happen, and all the laws and law enforcement people have not been of any help to me in any situation while living here. I honestly think anarchy would be a better form of (or lack of) government in Georgia. These laws are not just in this state, but all the states have retarded laws like that. Sometimes I think of running for office for something, just so I can try to fix some of these things the retards in office do, but there's not much hope for that. I should probably move to a free country but I can't get a job outside the U.S. or Canada at this point.
Moderating a post is fine; adding to the conversation is even better.

Have you ever lived outside of America?

I was expecting such an answer; Even if these restrictions are supposedly designed for children, everybody is a victim. For example, the whole Hollywoodian movie production is calibrated to avoid a PG-17 rating: this has HUGE consequences on the artistic nature of American cinema.

The real problem with American cinema is that the movie producers are forced to try and turn a profit. Paying for the movie becomes more important than creativity - most of the MPAA bashing posts have already gone over this. Don't just blame it on Puritain culture, blame it on commericial culture as well. (For real proof, try listening to some directors commentary on their films - the issue really does come up. Oops, sorry, you're probably in Region 2. Well, that's another story...) (BTW, it's "NC-17", which replaces the "X" rating. So it's ranked G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 with NC-17 being the only rating a parent can't bring children to. Which is in itself dumb, and I hear stories about NC-17 being used to censor non-MPAA materials...)

Also, what's all this about "failing to learn from history"?

The whole "failing to learn from history" bit comes from the whole idea that not being allowed to buy something somehow prevents it from existing or something. Why not view Nazi material? I can't think of a single logical reason - maybe no Nazi paraphenalia, but why not uniforms? Weapons? Code books? Presumably, as part of the history lessons, you are allowed to look at Nazi material. But making it criminal to look at material is just nonsense. Coming from an American upbringing, I can at least understand the "no sex" culture. (Actually, that's changing in America. Slowly, but it's changing. America as a whole is redicovering its sexuality - there have been a whole batch of "coming of age" films recently.) The unwanted side effect is that hiding sex actually adversely effects a teenage developement - since a child doesn't know exactly what sex is, they can't understand what's right and what's wrong.

Now apply hiding sex to hiding Nazi materials. They still exist. Even if there are "sex-ed" courses being taught in schools, they mostly consist of "Don't do it" because that's all they can say. So does your history become a lesson in hating Nazis or a lesson in how they came to power and what they did? Brushing Nazi material under the rug does have the effect of making it something that gets ignored - the real question becomes, do you start hating Nazis, or do you start hating what the Nazis stand for? If a huge anti-Nazi group came to power that started a German genocide, they would be no different from the Nazis - but would they be recognized as a new Nazi-like group? Or would the fact that they don't ware swasticas and don't hail Hitler keep the distinction from being made?

Transferring the hate from those who would repeat the Nazi horrors to Nazi artifacts is wrong - it's not helping. Just like hidding sex in America hasn't really helped anything, hiding Nazism is most likely going to move hate over an idea to hate over tangible artifacts. A Nazi pin is a Navi pin. It's something that has historical value. It symbolizes something - but it does nothing. Seeing it doesn't pass the values it represents onto you. It's just a lump of metal.

For that reason, despite the nausea I feel every time I see a swastika, I think it is valuable to have tangible reminders of the history we do not want to be doomed to repeat. On the other hand, having lived in France as well, I don't think that that is a problem facing most French adults.

But what about the children? Won't somebody please think of the children?

Seriously, the younger generation coming up who by now do not have parents who lived through that era are the ones who need to be shown the history. They need to have tangible evidence of where bigotry can lead.

It's for the same reason I oppose hate crime/hate speech laws - In addition to the loaded first ammendment issues and the setting of subjecting precedents. It's better to know what's out there than to be ignorant of the violent aspects of society.

When Nazi paraphenalia is outlawed, only outlaws will have Nazi paraphenalia.

__________________________________________________
Love the extraordinary but be thrilled by the mudane - there's a lot more of it.

Now then, as for the charge that this has a tremendous impact on American cinema, I don't really think that's as accurate as you think. Often times, studios intentionally throw in unbelievably bloody scenes in order to allow the stuff they actually want shown to slip by. Much of the "censoring" is actually by design. I agree, it's stupid, and it is an abridgment of rights, and I think the current Supreme court probably would have struck it down if they'd been the ones to decide it, but they don't feel like overturning an established precident. It sucks, but I still prefer economic disincentives to creating "obscene" movies to an outright ban on viewing certain things. Or for that matter, a national committe which sets the standards for my language (newspeak is doubleplus good!)

As for the topless bit, now you're just being silly. I can see your point on the movies, but countries are allowed to set their own standards of decency. The fact that we consider toplessness similar to bottomlessness is just what we're used to. Now, I'm a libertarian, I believe that people ought to be able to wear as little as they like (and the rest of us have an equal right to shout lewd comments :), but assuming that a country is going to pass laws concerning indecent exposure, the fact that our laws include tops and yours don't hardly makes us less free.

I don't like the 120 char sig limit, I had a great quote about the Devil, but then I edited it, and now my sig doesn't f

Well not quite. What I think is ridiculous about the USA is that it's illegal for an 18-20 year old to drink alcohol, but they can be drafted to die for their country.

IMHO, if you're old enough to die for your country (in actual fact, be forced to die for your country by being drafted as cannonfodder - witness the destruction of a significant number of American teenagers in Vietnam), you're old enough to drink beer.

Maintain thine airspeed lest the ground come up and smite thee

Maybe with that in mind, you Europeans won't be so quick to begrudge us gun-toting Americans :)

Personally, I find it strange that the French prefer to bury their heads in the sand and ignore what happened in World War II. I would rather see that memorabilia and be reminded of what could happen again if that kind of hate is allowed to go unchecked. Ignoring the past only dooms us to repeat it.

"The Internet interprets statesmanship as flamage and routes around it." -- James Craig Burley

How old are you, dude? Unless you're over 55, chances are you don't remember tanks breaking into your nursery or parading down Paris streets either. All you have to go on is the stories of parents and historians. Don't personalize a war in which you took no part.

"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh.

The irony is that the only way he would know of those tragedies (tanks in street, etc.) is by having the resources to study history.

If Nazi tanks are cruising down Paris, I would say that the Nazi's account for at least 50% of that history lesson.

Don't ignore the past, that's very dangerous!

The USA had (and still has) a big advantage raised by a previous post -- a large land mass bounded on the east and west by wide oceans, and on the north and south by (this century anyway) militarily weak, somewhat tolerant neighboring nations.

That being said, the USA has shown a remarkable ability to forgive its enemies even after learning of the atrocities they committed against US military people, as well as civilians found to be within their midst. The Japanese probably enjoy a more respected position in the world due to losing WW2 compared to if they'd won it. Similary, the Germans, and now the Vietnamese, don't find their contemporary or historical literature strictly forbidden on US soil to anywhere near the degree the French reject Nazi memorabilia.

(If only the US government was as willing to unilaterally disarm against its own populace as against its own sworn enemies abroad, but that's another topic.)

In a sense, the USA has a strong record of implementing the cultural equivalent of "embrace and extend", and with a high degree of success -- making friends out of enemies in situations where, historically, that sort of thing has been unthinkable (such as in the Middle East, Northern Ireland...see a pattern there?).

"The Internet interprets statesmanship as flamage and routes around it." -- James Craig Burley

I agree, Americans often miss the forest for the trees regarding issues such as free speech and gun control. We really get hung up on particular, often extreme, scenarios, and end up putting the cart before the horse.

American squeamishness at nudity and sexual behaviour is really quite bizarre. I find it telling that we don't tolerate a bit of slap and tickle, but find graphic enactments of brutality, even to the point of glorfication, acceptable, or at least more acceptable than depictions of sexuality.

It may be that there is no way to censure violence, or at least depictions of violence that don't reveal it's real consequences. But in it's psyche, America seems more comfortable with violence than sex. I find it disturbing.

Also, notice how quickly some posters will try to shout you down if you come out in favor of criminalizing hate speech. Is this censorship?

Perhaps not, but isn't it true that the most tenuous positions are often defended with the shrillest hyperbole?

Last time I was in Paris (around 3 years ago) all the major gay clubs had been closed by the French government. Not because they were gay (or so the government officials said) but because they just happened to be doing liquor inspections and drug raids on clubs, and all the clubs they decided to check out just happened to be gay. What an amazing coincidence!

Please!

...and not all of them require an actual ruling.

Kalifa does have a point. We do have the occasional dust-up over such things here in the USA, and we have also gone after foreign companies for perceived Nazi tie-ins. See this press release from the ADL for more info.

Though Pokemon is neither as disturbing as nazism or as fun as sex (or do I have those backwards?), the principle difference between here and the land of the Eiffel Tower and sub-40-bit encryption is that here the mere *threat* of legal action (as opposed to a ruling) was enough to force a Japanese corporation to change its product, which was not ever indended for consumption by Americans.

Disturbing enough for you?

This is probably one of the few discussions where Godwin's Law should not be invoked. ;)

In any case I'd have to disagree with you about censoring Nazi related stuff. To quote Voltaire, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I don't like Nazism. I think Nazis are barbaric thugs who are responsible for the most horrible acts of mass murder, destruction and totalitarianism the world has ever seen. (Stalin's USSR comes in a close second.) However, if Nazis want to spout their views on the web, it is their right. I draw the line when they go past stating opinions and start harming others. There are lots of web sites out there that fight fire with fire and discredit Nazi views specifically by linking to their sites and rebutting their statements. That is the best way to fight Nazism.

Oh and I agree with you on one point - the U.S. is way too puritan.

Meldroc - remove NOSPAM from address to email...

Isn't it fascinating how a mainstream (even if not rated for kids) movie may show breasts or frontal pictures of naked women (Think "The devils advocate" or "Eyes wide shut") while only a hardcore porn movie will display a dick?

Well what do I know, I'm just a silly swede. Here the comedy "Tillsammans" that featured (non-erect) penises as well as their feminine counterparts, got a "eleven years old, or seven with adult company"-rating. Wonder what that rating would be in the US?

All opinions are my own - until criticized

Take the NOSPAM out of my address if you're responding by mail..

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but do not the French people as a whole support the anti-hate speech laws and the current actions of the French courts?

Anyway, this is not the issue; the problem is country x is trying to enforce its regional laws on a corporation in country y. I dislike the French government and its methods of protective censorship (along with the same methods implemented in Germany and several other countries, though they don't seem to be bringing lawsuits), and find vague concepts of collective guilt a ridiculous basis for legislation. I detest socialism (this includes Blair, Clinton, Schroeder (whom I voted against; remember that even the Nazis were a socialist party), et al.). And I find the United States to be a flawed and fucked up country (though perhaps less so than many others). None of this has anything to do with the issues brought up by this case.

Rather than sitting here bitching about bitching about France, why not focus on the issue at hand? How is this absurd regionalism going to change the internet, both theoretically and practically? Does this mean that when I create a homepage, I have to take into account every possible viewing audience and the laws of every country? If Mr. Ghadafi sets up a page suggesting we shoot the president, does that mean the U.S. can sue? (stupid example, I know).

"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh.

And as for the yahoo.fr/.com, business; sorry, sucko, read the article:
Order Yahoo! Inc. to take all measures at their availability, to dissuade and render impossible all visitation on Yahoo.com to participate in the auction service of nazi objects, as well as to render impossible any other site or service which makes apologies of Nazism or that contests Nazi crimes;...

The equation of Nazi objects with Nazi apologetics is the bullshit most of the people here have issue with.

"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh.

Better? I don't mean to sound derisive or insulting (apologies, it just comes naturally), but why do you keep on bashing everybody who disagrees with this law as misofrancic (is that a word? if not, it should be), then quietly insert your own disagreement with it?

This has nothing to do with hating the French or any nationality. It's about the effects of a really stupid law passed under a very dangerous premise. This poppycock about the American hang-up with sexual issues is rather irrelevant, don't you think?

"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh.

"Oh Bother", said the Borg, "We've assimilated Pooh.

Even better, place a "500" error message: "Access to Yahoo! denied by the French government."

Rediculous problems require rediculous solutions.

-- FlamingShitOnAStick.Com

Why? Because I could...

Order Yahoo! Inc. to take all measures at their availability, to dissuade and render impossible all visitation on Yahoo.com to participate in the auction service of nazi objects...

What would you say if some Yahoo was selling cocain or heroin ? Just the exact same thing. And the only thing I don't understand is why Yahoo is authorizing this in the first place. What the fuck, none of you had history lessons some day ?

This is a comment on their leadership of the time, of course, and not on the French people either then or now; certainly there was a great deal of suffering under the occupation, and not all frenchmen were collaborators. The ambiguous history with regard to the Nazis does, however, help to explain French attitudes and sensitivities in the 45 years since their independence was restored.

So, if France as a nation has a need to be a little more stubborn and vociferous than most in asserting its sovereignty and independence against the rest of the world, maybe it's understandable even if a bit silly at times...

Whereas while permitting the visualization in France of these objects and the eventual participation of surfers of France to such an exposition/sale...

Now admittedly this is translated from French to English, but does anyone else see any problems here? Did Yahoo permit the visualization? My first guess would be any ISP offering service in France. However, how far along this path can we go? Maybe the manufacturer of the NIC/Modem should be held responsible, or the monitor, or even the PC. How about the phone company for allowing dial up?

And how about this...

Orders Yahoo France to warn all surfers visiting Yahoo.fr, and prior to making available the usage of the link which permits them to pursue their research on Yahoo.com

Now why is just Yahoo getting nailed here? Are thy the only site hosted in France that has a link to Yahoo.com? This gets back to the idea of if I link to a site with illegal MP3's, am I legally responsible? How many jumps do they make here? Yahoo is a pretty big site, but just linking to the front page without a warning is now illegal for yahoo.fr.
I'd be just a little bit upset about this ruling.

I'm not very good at spelling, and I don't care!

Impossible n'est pas français...

(Impossible is not french) - attributed to Napoléon Bonaparte.

So, just let them figure out HOW to do it, both legally AND technically... Why should Yahoo bother? French law doesn't extend past the borders of France anymore than american laws don't extend past the USA's borders...

--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
Klick here for Kaplan.

What he's banning is something he considers offensive. Is that right? Not in my opinion. But as a German I honestly think that Nazi memorabilia is more offensive then naked humans.

I still wouldn't want to have it banned, but I can sympathize.

Instead of pointing fingers as to "who killed who" maybe just being rational and recognizing the problem as just that... a problem all around is the first step in combating it. The best way to combat ignorance and fear is with education and reason. True, many prefer not to listen, but for every 9 people that censor you (censorship is so hypocritically applied) you reach 1 person who is enlightened. Like in America with the never ending story that is the presidential election, you see many people taking sides in name, but not in substance. They will claim to have EVERYONE's best interest in mind, yet only want to hear who they approve as being worthy of being heard. I don't like what the US has done on many occasions, just as I don't like what other countries have done. I will not play favorites and defend the "home team" and change my views just because "my country" did those things. Perhaps instead of making excuses, perhaps we could make solutions. In this case it becomes clear that yahoo really can not do anything to censor those products unless they instigate such a large task force of people (or idiotic filtering software) that many other decent things would end up being censored. If your view of nazi trinkets is that it implies sympathy towards Nazism, then choose not to support it. If you censor it from others, you cover up the deeper problem that is apparent in your area/country. Not to mention, that someone else will later find something else offensive that you do not, and then you will be restricted. THAT is why it is bad. To accuse those who are against censoring this of Nazism, is the same as accusing people against racist government policies (i.e. affirmative action) of being racist.
"I am Joe's Colon, I get cancer, I kill Joe"

...a good story about French Silliness gets a monday morning off to a great start?

I give it a two Grande Latte rating.

"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency

As a clue, unless you are referring to the Polish jokes as Racist (which they are not RAC(E)ist, but rather just bigotted) then you are a moron. I am tired of seeing "racism" and "racist" thrown around like censorship and intollerance from a "well meaning" liberal. Most people who accuse others of racism do not understand what that term means.... which is evidenced by how they pursue their attacks on their alleged racist aggressor. They themselves become the most hateful and bigotted monsters that they claim to be against. The idea of France being able to do what it wants is fine. They are sovereign... but to be LOGICAL you must follow that line of thinking to others as well. They CAN NOT require any other country or company in another company to make special ammends for them.

Furthermore, the whole sovereignty issue begs further analysis. The people of France are sovereign too, and if their goverment is trully a Democratic Republic like they claim it is, then that government is violating its boundries. Well intentioned grey haired government individuals are at the heart of every tyranny the world has known. The irony of the situation is not lost on those who have developed self awareness, and THINK with their brains without becoming overemotional.

Perhaps you should read your history books before you burn them!

The french judge then went on to demand that yahoo build a device called the Maginot Firewall to filter out all offending users. The Firewall is very difficult to circumvent directly, but incredibly easy to circumvent via ISPs in Belgium and the Netherlands.

This post is stupid and should definitely not be moderated up... Maybe a little reverse psychology will work.../

Do the French have a problem with this as well? Or have they just not gotten around to issuing an order against EBay as well?!