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.