Yahoo! Not Bound by French Court Ruling

Klerck writes "Luckily, a US federal judge has ruled that Yahoo! is not bound by the French ruling that demanded that all Nazi memorabilia be removed from its auction site. It's a nice surprise to have a sensible ruling come out of a federal court in times like these."

Re:This is the dumbest shit

[xurble]

And the DMCA doesn't try and impose US law on non US Nationals?

Politicians can make bad laws whatever their nationality.

What's good for one...

[Thnurg]

So if an American website is not bound by a French ruling, then perhaps there's hope for a certain Russian Programmer accused of breaking US law.

Question...

[Noryungi]

Does it apply in reverse?

Example: DeCSS is legal in France. If I post DeCSS on a US server and this server is a mirror of a French server, does French law and "backup copy" laws apply to the US site as well?

No? Then this decision is nothing more than US protecting its huge mega-corporation. Yes? Then free speech is really better protected.

Just my US$0.02... =)

Great... But does the contrary apply too?

[Saib0t]

This is nice to see that french laws can't affect a US company on the net. Now I hope that the same will apply with US laws and EU companies (or individuals).

Who will take the bet with me that USA will go to great length to make it possible to extend THEIR laws to other counries in a purely unjust way for the rest of the world.

They already sue EU people for creating and publishing the DeCSS, try to have EU pass "anti-terrorism" wiretaping laws... What else?

I am a european citizen and the last thing I want is see those corporate bought US laws apply to me.... Hey, who wants to pay for other people's lack of action?

Confederate flag

[DebianDog]

It is the same with the Confederate flag. You cannot bury or forget about history. The fact is the Nazis did very well in their efforts to turn Europe into one BIG Germany, killing millions in the process. Although the cause was wrong, it is a part of history that should not be forgotten.

The same is true for the Confederate flag and associated memorabilia. The U.S. was at war with itself on policies, state rights, and eventually slavery. These facts should not be forgotten either.

You will always have the Skinhead and Neo-Nazi types abusing the symbolism but, that is the cost of a free society.

Re:Irrelevant

[karmawarrior]

That just means that the French cannot persue the case through the US courts.

If the French court chooses to levy a huge fine for non-compliance on the US side, and seizes Yahoo assets in France as payment, there's bugger all the US courts can do about it. If Yahoo continues to flout what the French court regards as the law, and the French court issues warrants for the arrest of Yahoo executives, then, yes, the US courts wont be used to extradite Yahoo execs, but European courts and those in countries with extradition treaties with France will be able to enforce this should these people ever leave the US.

I don't agree with the situation. But then, I didn't think it was fair when Dimtry was arrested for activities that are perfectly legal in his own country that were performed in his own country. It's entirely hypocritical for the US to expect citizens of other countries to obey its laws globally, but expect its own citizens to be able to ignore those of other countries.

Jurisdiction?

[MobyDisk]

How can a US court make a decision regarding enforcement of a foreign court decision? Likewise, how can a French court expect to decide the practices of a US company that hosts a site in the US? I hope that somebody in the respective govts wakes up and realizes that these decisions make no sense at this level.

In a later ruling, the French court ruled that the US court ruling does not apply. (tomorrow) A US court ruled that the ruling of the French court that ruled that the us court ruling does not apply, does not apply. (next week) A French court ruled that the US court sucks.

The American Way

[shanek]

You can have the freedom to be a racist hate-monger all you want, as long as you don't play DVDs on Linux.

(This message has been brought to you by the US Government, owned and operated by the MPAA, RIAA, et al.)

Sensible Ruling??!

[Ducon Lajoie]

It's funny to see this described as a sensible ruling. Well, the ruling is not surprising, and I'm personnally quite happy with it. But it clashes big time with the rules US courts have developped regarding the application of US law abroad, especially when it comes to anything Internet or telecom related.

So far, american courts have used the most far fetched factual elements to tie any dispute to US jurisdictions and apply US law to them.

Now what? All national laws are equal, but some nationality are more equal than others?

Disagree, as usual, but when in R...

[ImaLamer]

I know most people don't agree with me about the whole 'Nazi' issue.

With that said, let us get to the issue. If Yahoo! wants to do business in France, don't they have to abide by their rules?

Isn't this American-we don't have to-all your culture are-Pax Americanus crap getting us in enough trouble?

When you've got a company like Yahoo! something tells me that it isn't a free speech issue, but more of a money issue.

Everyone is trying to find DMCA loopholes, but what about other issues. Can I order pot seed from Holland? Nope. It's something that is illegal here, and I wouldn't expect the Dutch to rule that they can send seeds just because they want to.

It seems that we try to push our so called freedom on people so much and they end up wanting to kill us.

The American Dream: Growing up from the gutter and getting to the top, just to tell people Screw You!

Sick person

[Antoshka]

Have anybody see that web site he's linked to? He's a realy sick person. Do you really have to post such a crap?

Re:Yeah!

[elmegil]

Which of course means that this ruling is completly consistent with typical Judicial rulings: protect your own. In this case, "your own" is national sovereignty, never mind that we try to overrule other nations sovereignty for our own purposes all the time.

We demand that all terrorist assets be frozen by all countries "or else" (which is not to say I don't agree with that action), but we won't brook anyone telling us to not sell essentially terrorist "memorabilia". Consistency is great, isn't it?

don't be an idiot

[streetlawyer]

I'm sure nobody will be fooled by this, but I really must point out that child pornography is not legal in Thailand, and that the Thais are actually doing their level best to stamp out the child sex trade, with next to no help from the legions of fat American and German tourists who agree with Slashdot that domestic laws can't be enforced overseas.

So let me get this straight

[Anonymous Coward]

On one hand, the US can go on and impose their laws (Helms-Burton, etc.) on other countries when these are just doing something that they simply don't like (like talking to Cuba or any other country on the US blacklist), something that does not hurt the US in any way.

On the other hand, when the actions of US companies have a direct impact on what goes on in other countries, go against the laws of said countries (like prevention the spread of hate litterature), the US entities are not bound by the laws of other countries.

What the french judge said, at the urging of jewish activists and other anti-racism groups, was basically "do whatever you want in *your* country, but abide by our laws in *our* country". In this Age of the Internet, where so-called "local" actions can have global consequences, this was not un-reasonable.

The only signal that non-americans get out of this is that the US thinks its above anyone else, that it can do as it pleases wherever it wants to do it and that it has little respect for laws and customs of other countries. That it thinks it has "the right" to interfere in other countries' affairs (Helms-Burton, their very active involvment in the recent Nicaragua election, etc.), while other countries can't say anything on the activies of US companies and/or can critisize (sp?) moronic decisions of the US gov't (Kyoto, etc.).

Then don't wonder why the US is so hated abroad -- and contrary to Dan Rather said on Letterman's, they don't hate the US because they envy it. They hate it because it can be such a idiotic bully, at times.

US and the world

[Mop]

We can conclude, from the combination of Yahoo and Skylrov cases, that:

• an american citizen can travel and break any law wherever he is in the world, as long as he doesn't break an american law
• a non-american citizen in his own country can't break an american law, whatever the laws in his country.

dmitri

[kel-tor]

quote: "Today the judge basically he said it was not consistent with the laws of the United States for another nation to regulate speech for a U.S. resident within the United States," Worth said.

but it is legal fo the us to regulate the 'speech' for a russian resident outside of the United States, and like wise it is legal for the US to regulate the auction of the software just because some Americans were able to buy it?

Coming Soon, to a site near everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

all the mp3's and cheap cloned software that you want from a number of nations that do not observe USA's law

Re:World Government

[Flower]

Yes-- it's called democracy. Do you really believe the Chinese don't understand free speech? They don't have free speech-- there'd be no problem if they were voting on these free speech decisions you mention, because they'd need to have votes. (I'm not too sure what India has to do with it.)

But I don't want to live in a democracy and in the USA I don't. And I don't want another culture that, while they may understand free speech, doesn't want free speech. You are aware that many cultures out there do not feel free speech is an admirable or useful goal.

And what makes you think that a world government would be a democracy? Or a Republic? Would|Should China or India (and this is why the parent mentioned India btw) get more votes because they have a larger population? If the US votes in a few people that based on region is that any better than if China elects by a party committee?

Nearly a couple of decades ago, my Eagle project was the recreation of a WWI veterans monument for the town's historical society. My troop and I made the forms,dug that hole, poured the concrete, put the names of the dead onto it. Those people, and members of my family who were in WWII fought and died so I could enjoy the rights I currently have. Now that I have a son of my own I want him to inherit those benefits and the burdens of responsibility that come with them.

I'm not giving up those rights just because some other country doesn't think the effort to be responsible with free speech is worthwhile.

Re:Yeah!

[bay43270]

We demand that all terrorist assets be frozen by all countries "or else" (which is not to say I don't agree with that action), but we won't brook anyone telling us to not sell essentially terrorist "memorabilia". Consistency is great, isn't it? I have a small distinction to point out: The terrorist money being frozen would have been spent on killing civilians. Those terrorists are active today. Nazi memorabilia are, for the most part, historical artifacts (like a civil war flag or a gun fired by Napoleon). It's not like the money from Nazi memorabilia would go towards funding a new Nazi party.

Re:Yeah!

[Rogerborg]

To take a less emotive (and less badly informed) example, the age of consent in Japan is 14. Let's say Yahoo! Japan [yahoo.co.jp] splashes some raunchy pictures of a 14 year old Japanese celebrity that push but don't break the boundaries of Japanese law.

Explain why it would be right for a US judge to tell Yahoo! Japan to remove the images, simply because they might be viewed by US viewers.

For bonus marks, go on to explain why this wouldn't make it right for (e.g.) an Afghan court to tell Yahoo! US to remove pictures of Hilary Clinton, because she's not wearing a veil.

Here's the thing. The onus is on the government of the country of the viewer/purchaser to police their own citizen's actions. Trying to cut the "evil" off at its source is simply abrogating responsibility and exporting morality.

France can tell her own citizens not to buy Nazi items, just as they can tell them not to use Anglicised words (and they do). They can tell any Yahoo! outfit operating in France to stop selling anything they like. But they have no more right to tell the US arm of Yahoo! to stop selling anything than the Taliban has to tell France to stop allowing women to go around unveilled just because Afhgan nationals might find pictures of them online.

See how easy it is to use overblown, over emotive arguments to make any point? Won't someone think of the children! will get you modded up for making a point that anybody can understand, but if you make decisions based on the worst that might happen somewhere, then you'll end up living in a pretty stale little global village.