Re:I hurts some (Score 1)

"You are wrong, they have great symbolic power, which is of course why they exist, are sold and bought. And of course it doesn't stop Nazi sympathisers from being so if they can't buy them, it just stops them being able to parade them in offensive ways."

The thing I see wrong with this, is that memorabilia isn't different in its symbolism from newly created items. I could go out to the store, buy a patch of cloth and threadm, cut out a swastika, and sew it onto my clothes if I really wanted to. There isn't anything stopping actual Nazi-sympathizers from doing that, unless there are laws to catch them after the fact. You're not going to outlaw all cloth and thread and scissors, just becuase they can be used to make a symbol that might offend someone... So I see your parading argument as rather moot. If France doesn't want them parading their offensive symbols, then they have every right to enforce that. If France doesnt want their citizens to buy any Nazi memorabilia, they have every right to enforce that. If France wants to stop a US company from selling Nazi memorabilia, they can piss off, because its outside their jurisdiction. France would have every right to try and persuade the US to comply, through diplomacy, sanctions, or military if they wanted. But the US doesn't need to comply if the don't want and can defend their right to do so.

Same thing is true vice versa. If the US demands France freeze all terrorists assets, for example... France has every right to refuse if it violates one of their principles. The US would have every right to try and persuade them to comply by whatever means they chose, diplomatic, economic sanctions, whatever (hopefully not military, as its usually the messiest route)... But France could refuse to comply as long as they want, so long as they can defend their right to do so.

On to Afghanistan... The Taliban, being in control had every right to defy US demands to turn over Osama bin Laden, because it violated a principle that they live by. They have every right to do this, and can continue to not comply so long as they can defend their right to do so. They US chose a military response to 'persuade' them to comply. The Taliban now have to defend their right not to turn him over.

I'm not a fan of school yard politics, and 'might makes right', but that is the way of things in all nature, and we aren't above it, as highly as we think of ourselves, and as highly principled we all think we are.

"Anyway, it's all moot AFAIAA, becasue they have pulled those pages, along with certain others such as auctions of body parts, used underwear etc.

Curious how those don't get the free speechers hopping up and down. :^)"

As to this, I would have to agree with the other previous responder. It's probably because most of those people understand it is Yahoo!'s right to govern themselves in what they allow, so long as it complies with local law. The problem is brought about when a foreign power tries to exert jurisdiction where it has none.