frinsore, John Leeming and several other readers passed on word of the decision of a French court that Yahoo is responsible for making it impossible for French citizens to access auctions featuring Nazi-related items. As John writes, "It appears France is now defining censorship on U.S. Web sites; in particular, Yahoo! and its auction sites. For all those who have in the past believed immunity of action exists because you live in a different country or under different laws, this CNN/Reuters article is an interesting glimpse into future international jurisdiction problems for the Internet, and why we need to watch for the manner in which governments decide to deal with it." Here's NewsBytes' coverage of the same story.
I would be pretty disturbed if someone had death-camp memorabilia, I'd rather those be in museums, but there are a few legitimate reasons to have them, so why d*ck with them?
There's a great bar in Chicago on North Avenue called "The Exit" that has all kinds of death camp memorabilia (gas masks, etc.) hanging above the bar. It is a punk/fetish dive, and while I'm pretty sure all of the "paraphanalia" actually came from an Army Surplus Store (and not a Nazi death camp) the motif is pretty clear.
Does this offend people. Almost certainly. That is part of the idea (and part of the place's charm, as an aging punk dive). They also serve a disgusting mix of Jaegermeister and Schnapps called a "Dead Nazi."
Censorship is never the answer - if the paraphanalia is being used for hate speach, you merely drive such speach underground and outlaw legitimate uses, including such effective countermeasures as mockery and paradoy. Remember Castle Wolfenstein? Banned in Germany because of the swastika flags in the background, despite the fact that the hero (you) was running around shooting Nazis, rather the opposite of singing "Deutschland Ueber Alles" I would say. Clearly even the best intended and most justifiable forms of censorship run amok, given enough time and the diversity of human experience and expression.
The answer, instead of censorship, is to meet hate speach where it occurs head on, with intelligent counter-arguments, mockery, social stigmatization, and all of the other tools we as human beings have to encourage and even pressure people to change their offensive behavior without trampling on their civil rights.
There are several things I'd like make clear for/. readers :
- this is not the french govt suing. Yahoo is sued by 2 anti-racist organizations - this is not "France trying to rule the Internet". Yahoo France is a registered company here, and the problem was because these auctions were accessible from the yahoo.fr portal.
I usually don't agree with censorship, neither do I agree with racism or nazism. But due to various immigration and racism problems, France has passed several laws that forbids such things as "incentive to hatred racial" (sorry for the poor translation).
We have most of the same censorship problems that you experience in the US. The rules are simply a little bit different. As our history is.
Lots of things are allowed in France and are not in the US...
You might want to look up the dates of "The Battle of Stalingrad" and "The Battle of Kursk" before you spout off about sleeping through history class. You also might want to compare the relative troop strengths of the US and Russian Armies, and the relative troop strengths of the German armies in France and Western Europe in 1944.
An important point has to be made. Who's exactly been sued and condemned ?
Well, for once, France has not embarked in yet another overseas crusade as the article seems to infere. The defendant was not Yahoo.com (US) but its French subsidiary, Yahoo.fr. What is "innovative" in this decision is that Yahoo.fr, in France, has been found liable for facts taking place in the US.
The substantiation behind this de facto solidarity is not simply that Yahoo.com is a major investor in Yahoo.fr. It would completly contradict the European dogma on strict respect of national sovereignty and opposition to cross-border legislations (e.g. D'Amato act). Instead, it was found that, as Yahoo.fr points to Yahoo.com's services (including the offending auctions) and integrates them as a part of its own content, among things, as part of its search engines, Yahoo.fr is, as a consequence, a willfull contributor to the offense.
If Yahoo.fr's content was completly separate from Yahoo.com or if Yahoo.fr was making some serious effort to filter nazi paraphernalia out of its search results (and links), there would no offender to prosecute in France.
So why can't Yahoo.fr use a safe harbor disculpation ? First, there's no well-established doctrine about that in France, and that sometime leads to fairly stupid results. See what happened to altern.org last year. More compeling, the relations between Yahoo.com and Yahoo.fr are not simply passive, as an independant (and blind) search engine would be. This integration of US content in Yahoo.fr offer is a result of a voluntary and highly publicized strategy of cross-licensing and integration.
If an otherwizely independant French portal, say www.MonBeretBasqueEtMaBaguette.fr, had the same pattern of cross-licensing with Yahoo.com and was also actively indexing nazi stuff from Yahoo.com, the liability would be exactly the same.
The whole affair has nothing to do with an insidious overreach of sovereignty, and is in fact strictly Franco-Frenchy;-)
No wonder people hate the French... [slashdot.org] No, people don't hate the French. Anymore than they hate any other country. All countries around the world make mistakes. Look at the US. Look at Britain. My god look at the US and our censorship problems! The UK and us have ECHELON, for God's sake. Going on about what country is hated, or deserves being singled out for hate, is bigotry in motion - and it leaves you and your nationality wide open to be judged yourself. (BTW I'm a hard core American.)
(I can go on for quite a while with more example posts [slashdot.org], but I won't. Y'all get the point.)
The sad part is this stuff isn't getting marked or replied to as flamebait - at least it wasn't as of my writing this piece of protestdrivel. So where is all the anti-racism now? Speaking of stereotypes, don't y'all think this will reflect badly on slashdot posters as a whole?
======================== 63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs, ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Freedom of speech is absolute. There are no exceptions. You have the right to say whatever you want, unless you are infringing someone else's rights.
This doesn't derive from some bullshit "endowed by their creator" crap. It derives from the simple fact that no one has any basis for a right to silence me. If you say you have a right to tell me I can't be a racist, it's your place to justify it. You have no more right to tell me I can't go around saying "aryans uber alles" than I do to tell the jehovah's witness they can't go around saying "refuse transfusions".
If those items are causing grief to any individual, that individual should grow some thicker skin, or should bury their head in the sand. The holocaust happened. Ignoring it won't undo it. There are neo-nazis in France. Telling them they can't use the internet to communicate won't make them decent people.
What you are advocating is mind control. It's forcing your particular world view on everyone. Isn't this exactly the problem with the nazis to begin with? Maybe we should burn all books advocating censorship?
If you think anyone, any county, any collection of bullies who call themselves "parliament" or "congress" or the "diet" or the "pope" has a right to censor anyone, tell me why. Where does he get this right? If the french have the right to prohibit sales of nazi memorabilia, do you think the Ayatollah has a right to prohibit the sale of Salman Rushdie's work?
Does anyone have the right to censor anyone else, or not? Only some people? How do we know who has a right to censor what? Do we come and ask you whenever it comes up? I mean, I'm glad you could clear it up that this particular instance is one in which the people we don't like should be censored, but what about other situations? Like, should people who say der Fuehrer is a little on the nutty side be sent to the camps as well? How about people who say Mao isn't all that great?
Does it depend on where the people live? I mean, does the Ayatollah's jurisdiction to prohibit Salman Rushdie from writing only apply to people in Iran buying Rushdie's books, or to anyone anywhere buying a book originally written in Iran, or only off a website hosted in Iran?
As an atheist, I'm offended by about 99% of all religious sites on the web. Does this mean they should be taken down? As a libertarian, I'm offended by assholes like you who think they have the right to dictate their morality to the whole fucking world. Do I have the right to ask Rob to yank your account and delete this post?
The sad thing is that most of the people on the planet think that you are being reasonable. I wish I could live somewhere else. My options for other countries to move to are even being eroded as the UN and other international organizations further homogenize the planet. The US seems the best place to live right now, but that's sort of like saying "I'd rather have the picture of the man being beheaded on my wall than the one of the child being run over by a lawn mower".
Before you advocate this moralistic imperialism, I urge you to consider whether your morals are any more objective than anyone elses, and what would happen if everyone attempted to force their morals on everyone else like you are encouraging.
Like a threatening letter from micros~1, this french court is making demands that are not only unreasonable, but acording to Yahoo engineers quoted in the article: "..it was not technically possible for the company to scan the content of all the sites carried on its service."
This may have an effect on Yahoos ability to make peering agreements with French telecom companies ___
The broader problem, be it with France, Germany (remember Germany and CompuServe?) or anywhere else, is that we seem to confuse a belief in the goodness of freedom of the exchange of information and ideas between individuals with the freedom of commercial services to propagate anything they wish regardless of national laws, cultures or sensibilities.
Perhaps so, but Yahoo! isn't doing this. This isn't a matter of cultural hegemony. Yahoo! doesn't permit auctions of Nazi paraphernalia on its French site, out of respect to French law and French sensibilities. This case is about what happens on the US auction site, since French citizens can access (and presumably bid on) auctions there for such paraphernalia. These items are quite legal to sell in the US but illegal to sell in France.
Without national firewalls, there just is no way to prevent French citizens from accessing a US site, with the Internet as presently constituted.
Let me suggest that the onus should be on the French citizens who are breaking French laws in France. Consider that if a French citizen bids on and wins a US auction for Nazi paraphernalia, he or she then has the problem of actually receiving the illegal merchandise. It is preventing the physical act of importation that the French should focus on. And that's their responsibility, not Yahoo!'s.
That's the thing. France doesn't want Yahoo to censor THEM. They just want them to censor someone ELSE.
Personally, if some moron wants to trade Mein Kampf online or someone's selling old WW2 pistols, I could personally give a damn. My grandfather served in France during WW2. I understand the atrocities that went on.
I'm not saying "forget what has gone before". Quite the opposite. Remember, and learn.
The French government is trying to blot out a spot in history simply because they find it personally repugnant. All they're doing is making it easier for such things to happen again.
Banning sales of things, simply because they evoke emotional response from someone is ridiculous. That leaves EVERTHING open to banning.
Helms-Burton would, if not stonewalled by Clinton, ban entry into the US the officers of corporations which accepted property stolen from US corporattions by the Cuban Communists.
If you want to bash something, get the facts first.
Nice idea, but it ignores human nature, the nature that drives us to try to control our environment. The wild west that is the internet today will not stay wild forever.
I think a much more realistic assessment is that countries will react toward the internet in much the same way they have toward international trading. They will form the WITO (World Information Trading Organization). Trade in, and access to information is just as important as access to goods and will become even more valuable. The info will increasingly be essential to countries to secure goods and maintain the IP (information property) allowing an economy to sustain itself.
We have yet to take more than the first baby steps toward countries forming internet trade alliances. We have international groups forming standards that are often ignored by the companies making the stuff of the internet but this will likely change once legislators here and abroad start passing laws requireing companies to adhere religously to set standards in order to sell goods in that country complete with policing rules. We will than have other countries wanting to join in these markets and if they don't like the rules tough luck.
Mabey we will have a few markets worldwide but we all know the power of the allmighty buck and if the US or the EU pass these laws first that will set the trend. Soon countries (and their citizens) will become familiar with the idea of global laws and global a truly global marketplace complete with global governance.
Soon countries will have to sign onto more and more global decision making bodies (GATT, WTO etc) to solve disputes among them ultimately leading to global governance. It is court actions like this one by the French and many other by the US and other that will lead to these governing councils. Be it this year or in the next century it will happen.
The internet may actually unite the world rather than declare independence from it.
3. There is little practical reason to own a swastika or other Nazi or neo-Nazi symbol. Chances are about 99.99999999% that if you own such a symbol, you're a hate-mongering, jew/black/gay beating fascism-loving jerk.
You forget that the swastika was stolen by the Nazis. It is an ancient and sacred symbol for Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains. So I own pictures that contain swastikas, not because I am a Nazi, but because I am Buddhist. Maybe I should tell my Jewish roomate, and my Chinese roomate, and my Thai girlfriend to watch their backs because I might become a "jew/black/gay beating facism-loving jerk" at any moment, but my incling is that this is not a real danger.
Secondly, there is every reason to own Nazi artifacts if you are a historian. There is no substitute for a primary source, and the propaganda and imagery created by the Nazis is a very important cultural artifact. I believe the saying is something along the lines of "Those who forget (or attempt to push away) the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes." The Nazi era is a time I would just as soon not repeat; as such, I am very interested in remembering.
You've got cause and effect mixed up. The reason this is banned in Germany & France is that Germany & France had, before the bans, strong Nazi movements, and were also both ruled by Nazis. The US has never had a particularly strong Nazi movement.
3. There is little practical reason to own a swastika or other Nazi or neo-Nazi symbol. Chances are about 99.99999999% that if you own such a symbol, you're a hate-mongering, jew/black/gay beating fascism-loving jerk.
Cool. I'm Hindu, the swastika is a very important religious symbol, and has been for the past 3000+ years. So does this mean that neither I, nor the 800+ million Hindus today can trade in our religious items? Hold on, Buddhists and Jains also use it, though to a lesser extent.
So do we ban it just because a group of bigoted scum used it? Hold on, weren't the Crusades and Inquisition carried out under the cross? The Frogs should ban that as well.
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? [...] Allowing someone to own a relic of the Nazi past doesn't make them an instant Nazi. I really don't even see why there's a problem here.
The problem is, as usual, political. Let me try to explain how I see it.
Back in 1945, when WWII was over, people said to each other: 'We do not want this to happen ever again' -- like they said after WWI:-( -- The Germans and their collaborators were punished and the Good Guys tried to get on with their lifes. And all was good because the Good Guys won. And they tried to banish all traces of nazism.
Then a second generation stood up and asked their parents: 'but what did YOU do in the war?', to which a lot of parents replied: 'I had very strong thoughts against the situation' or 'I once directed an officer the wrong way' or 'I has this Jewish neighbour, I helped him and en passant nicked all his valuables, I didn't like Jews anyway'. And this second generation scorned their parents for it, felt guilty about their parents and wrote way too many books about it.
And now this second generation is in control, and people ask them: 'what did the previous governements do?' to which they have to reply 'we helped the oppressors every way we could -- that really taught them a lesson'. And they get a lot of bad press about it.
And then some gov-related guy(m/f) in France sees that you can buy nazi-thingies in France. And he sees the questions arising: 'What is the french government doing against the rise of neo-nazis'. And now they can answer: 'we did everything we could'.
Of course, this is only a reason for their actions, not a justification of it. But please note that it's not just France -- a lot of (north-west) european countries could have done this.
Pretending that people have never hated other people won't keep people from hating each other in the future. They print Swastikas in history books and show them in museums so that people can learn what could provoke other people to such terrifying acts.
I would be interested to see the uniform my Grandfather fought in, and I would be just as interested to see the uniforms of the men he thought. Whether you like it or not, the symbols and the "hate speech" which went with them changed the world in ways that directly affect you every day. You are a fool to call your own history trash.
The difference between the cross burnings, and the nazi sales, is that one is a voluntary transaction, and one is not.
If the good citizens of La France don't want to see pictures and accounts of those voluntary transactions, then let them pull themselves off the internet, or configure all routers at the border to block yahoo's subnet.
Let them decide for themselves what they see, not what everyone sees.
I can agree with what you say, but there are big problems with the precident that it sets. I would be interested to know if this memorabilia had actually been sold to buyers inside France, and delivered. That would constitute clear violation of the law; you're introducing a banned substance into a country that outlaws it, tantamount to weapons or drug smuggling in the US. But if France simply objects to the listings being present at all, that creates a very bad and very chilling precident. It would mean that nothing could be posted on the Internet that violated the definition of decencey/legality in any country in the world. Because if France can stop the posting of things related to Nazism, Iran can stop posts defamatory to Islam. Israel can demand anything criticizing Judaism or advocating Palestinian militancy be removed. The Australian government can sue sights containing nudity wherever they sit for violating their new anti-pornography laws. It would amount to making the internet the jurisdiction of every country in the world, making it the most restricted medium in the world. It is the equivalent of saying that no book can be published that offends anyone, anywhere, because someone from there might see it. Not a good precident to set. There are, of course, considerations of the need for Yahoo to respect French law inside of France, but the way the article was worded it seemd that there had been very little that could be construed as a direct violation of the law. Respecting democracy does mean allowing nations to run their own affairs as they please, even if their values don't agree with ours. But respect for democracy must go both ways, and that gets hairy when dealing with asymetric situations. The US and Yahoo owe the French that respect, but France also is obligated to honor the laws and customs of the US- which in this case hold Yahoo blameless.
How the heck does 2 organizations from France sue a California-based company by citing French law? These auctions aren't even in french.
Not that Yahoo can't space the $1300 bucks, but why should they pay? Whats going to happen other than the over-hyped bad PR they're gonna get? I can imagine the French impotently trying to enforce this and push their laws onto other countries.
The internet is global, that doesn't mean every law from every country simultaneously apply to every ISP. You connect to the United States you get United States content.
Before the Internet was popular and people knew what it was, the only laws concerning it were conversions of other ones. Now that being online is the cool thing to do, all the governments decides that they must regulate it. This is not logical. The internet is a commodity. If a country does not agree with the rules set by the organizations that run it, do not allow your citizens to connect to the internet, go start your own. Yes I realize that these countries see it as their benifit to be online, but either agree with ALL of it or NONE of it and don't try to make some arbitrary line telling other people what they can and cannot do.
Hitler had a fancy for the classical thinkers of ancinet Greece. When time came to choose a symbol for his new Third Reich he choose the swastika an old Greek symbol which meant good will and prosperity. He thought it the perfect symbol for his new germany which would be strong a prosperous.
You can think of it as a symbol of hate because of the actions of one group as long as you want to but until I die it will mean goodwill and prosperity to me. I would not do anything as foolish as wearing a swastika in public due to the ignorance of the populace at large of the symbols true origin.
"swastika (swst-k) n. The emblem of Nazi Germany, officially adopted in 1935. An ancient cosmic or religious symbol formed by a Greek cross with the ends of the arms bent at right angles in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ [Sanskrit svastika, sign of good luck, swastika, from svasti, well-being; see su- in Indo-European Roots.]"
Actualy, yes, you are. Kiddie porn is illegal, therefore the people who want to distribute those kinds of pictures are not free to do so. Therefore, a law banning kiddie porn has restricted the Freedom of certain individuals.
The thing is, modern society will accept laws that may in one way or another restrict their freedom, in order to control a smaller minority who may be a threat to the majority. Placing people in prison is another example, you remove certain peoples rights from them in order to protect the rights of the majority.
Note for the knee-jerkers: I am not condoning kiddie porn.
Under US laws you can't sell or buy drugs. But you can do that in Netherland, so it must be a free speech issue for the Netherlanders not to be able to sell drugs to the US. Give them the right to sell drugs to the US.
Or you can also let the pedophiliacs buy nude kids picture or kids porno, hey if you don't do so you get over their freedom of speech
You don't know the French people but I assure you they (including all the geeks, pro free-speech and open-source advocates) agree with this law. We don't like seeing US people making money from the grave of millions.
French They have lost their freedom of for 5 years during WWII, comparing that the Slashdot against M$ case is pityful. But they support free speech and have a Nazi-like political party since more than 20 years. It's not the ideas, it's the symbols that are not allowed.
If you wants to regulate selling of drugs; regulate the physical transportation of drugs. You can not download mariuana through your modem! If you say you want to regulate drugs, and shut down websites, you are in fact lying - you are regulating speech.
If we don't stand up together soon, the governments will stand up over us. And we'l never have the chance again. I wonder what would happen if a group declared the independence of the Internet Republic, and themselves as its government (And of course created some voting website or whatever to vote for the next internet government). I wonder how the US and the EU and all the other countries would react? --The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
...is a one-world government. That way there is no such thing as jurisdiction - the whole world is under United Earth Dicta-er, Directorate jurisdiction.
See how efficient that is?
I say we have a no confidence vote for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Who's with me?
- Palpatine ======================== 63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs, ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Interesting move to pander completely to our sympathies by mentioning the victims, I'm sure they feel just as bad when they hear the word "Hitler" but we keep that around for some reason. Maybe because it would be hard to put WWII in the history books without it.
Nazi sympathizers buy these symbols? So? If they weren't for sale they'd just make their own, your implication that symbols empower neo-Nazis is laughable. Thats really your point here, do these symbols give some long-forgotten third reich magic to the users like some hackneyed TV plot?
Exactly why would a rational Frenchman care if an already neo-Nazi buys a Hitler youth knife? The screaming hysterical Frenchmen probably cares, but that doesn't mean we should.
In the end I'd rather have the choice between helpful and hateful speech than people like you deciding for me.
I understand that this may not be a good business strategy, but Yahoo! should just tell France to go (censored) themselves. The judge even went so far as to ORDER Yahoo! to cough up some cash.
It's pretty hard for them to control all the auctions that go on on their site... and even though they may be able to, who says they should?
C'mon, France, I understand that this is reminiscent of a horrible time, but give it up already. The sale of this stuff is harmless... just a bunch of items for collectors.
-- Dr. Eldarion -- It's not what it is, it's something else.
is to have the French Gov't take it up with the French citizens. Yahoo cannot be expected to A)look at every item posted to its web site, and B) have a list of what is and isn't acceptable to various countries. What if someone wants to post some Salman Rushdie memorabilia? Does Yahoo! have to block the auction in Iran? And what if someone sells a video of Tiananmen Square? Yahoo! blocks Chinese users? And that's only Yahoo! What about E-bay, web-sites, etc. Where does the list stop? The only way that users of various nationalities will be able to be blocked is by laws prohibiting _them_ from accessing and said information. Not that this isn't an incredibly heinous idea anyway. For once I hope that the US, in its incredibly arrogant fashion, tells the rest of the world to shove off. Internet access must be free and open to everyone.
Agreed, I hope Yahoo tells them to get stuffed, and that this serves an example to overseas sites threatened by stupid US laws.
An "world government" would not fix this - it would just make it worse. The Europeans will want anything related to nazis banned, the US will want anything related to anonymously sharing files and encryption banned, Australia will lobby for everyone to use censorware (god bless my fucked-up country), moslem countries will want anything derogatory about their religion to be banned, China will throw fits everytime someone mentions their government in less than glowing terms. I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy!
Why can't people be tolerant of other people's beliefs? Yes, even neonazis - otherwise you are just emulating them. That's right - the French government/legal system is emulating the very group they are trying to condemn - how's that for irony?
P.S. My favourite quote:
Under French law, it is illegal to exhibit or sell objects with racist overtones.
So a swastika badge and a white hood have "racist overtones". What happens when the next cult uses a flower or a tree? - I guess we'll have to ban those as well.
"There are only two things that are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former."
Over time, any sufficiently effective propaganda becomes art. It is not as if Nazi Germany was alone in this work, either. Here is a link to a poster created by the "good guys" during WWII, entitled: Murdering Jap [openstore.com]
I know a number of people that have Stalin posters simply because they are interesting works, not because they endorse communism or genocide, and it is perfectly fine to do so nearly everywhere -- why should Nazi media be any different?
I am posting from a rather unique position. Would that it were actually unique in the true meaning of the word.
You see, I don't exist. No, really, I don't. I can prove it. Go ahead and find my ancestors.
You can't, they didn't exist. The village they lived in didn't exist either. Not ever, not nohow. Therefore, I don't exist.
In Romania the holocoust was so complete that at the end of the war it is figured there were, approxamately, NO Jews. No villages where the Jews had lived. No records of there EVER having been Jew in the country. Those that seem to remember there having been Jews must have been mistaken.
The eradication was chillingly total.
Of course I can't prove this myself. So far as I can show you there were never any Jews. Neat huh?
I have some idea of the way speach was used to promote the cause of Nazism. I ALSO have some idea of the way *repression* of speach was used by the Nazis.
Me, I'd rather have them giving talks in the public halls rather than skulking in the alleys. If their speach has that sort of power this place already isn't a fit place to live, but at least I'll KNOW it!
Seriously, there is really a problem here. We have the choice between two evils:
1) Any time you pass a law to restrict something (porn, casino, selling drugs online,...), the servers just move to a country that doesn't have that law.
2) You end up with countries (like this case) trying to regulate what's happening in other countries.
The broader problem, be it with France, Germany (remember Germany and CompuServe?) or anywhere else, is that we seem to confuse a belief in the goodness of freedom of the exchange of information and ideas between individuals with the freedom of commercial services to propagate anything they wish regardless of national laws, cultures or sensibilities.
Germany in particular has some rather strong legislation against promulgating any images or items that are Nazi or Nazi-like. The French have strong feelings on this score as well, perhaps because they're still torn between the romanticized Resistance and Vichy's roundup and handover of France's Jews to Hitler.
Whatever the cause, an online venue becomes a "place," and apparently the French don't want certain kinds of "places" on their cybersoil.
Unlike these countries, in the USA we have fairly wide liberties (albeit threatened), because as a people we can be controlled and manipulated by passive consumption of television and whatever else passes for mass entertainment, like spectator sports. Notice that the people the big corporations are challenging are outfits like 2600 who don't and won't fit into the groove. American culture is sort of a universal solvent - it gives one a sense of empowerment but mainly empowerment to consume information, ideas, and opinions delivered by corporate boardrooms - unless you choose to step outside the box, and at that point things get uncomfortable.
Other societies vest other authorities as arbiters of what's right or wrong in their cultures. Would I prefer some Left-Bank deconstructionist 's views on culture to those of Steve Case? That's what we're up against these days. So yeah, we do have a problem, Houston, but it's deeper than laws and enforcement.
I would strongly disagree. Locked in a trunk in my dads attic is a bloodstained Nazi flag complete with five bullet holes, sitting next to a box containing a Purple Heart. You want to know why that Nazi flag is important to me? In December of 1944 my grandfather and his unit were tied up in some intensive fighting in France. One day his unit was crossing some fields when they were ambushed by several armored Nazi units. Although they were seriously outgunned they fought back hard and suceeded in destroying five of the units before the rest pulled back. Afterwards my grandfather climbed on top of one of the wrecked vehicles and pulled down the Nazi flag to keep as a momento...with the five bulletholes already added. Two days later his unit was entering a small French village when they were attacked by snipers, and my grandfather was shot in the neck within the first few minutes of fighting. His buddy, looking for something to staunch the bloodflow, found the Nazi flag, pushed it into the wound, and held it there until a medic could arrive to help him...probably saving his life.
To me, that Nazi flag is a symbol of the hell my grandfather went through to make sure we would continue to live in a free society, and of the suffering he endured because of it.
So please don't call it trash...to some of us it is much more. I would hate to think that we are entering a world where such an important momento to my family could be made illegal because it offends somebody. I would never consider selling the flag, but allowing governments to regulate momentos like this is a step in that direction.
Now add to that the fact that many of those who buy Nazi regalia are neo-Nazi sympathizers, and you wind up with an even better reason for a rational person in France to fear those symbols.
Even though I don't like neo-nazism, or nazism - I won't try to censor it. True free speech doesn't limit hate-speech. If you start saying that "that and that should not be legal to talk about" - then its no longer freedom of speech. Yes, the nazis resisted freedom of speech - but we're just as bad, if we refuse them their *RIGHT* to speak about their opinion.
The only way to beat nazism (if that is what we want, that is at least what I want), is to argue against it. You have to *argue* against those who believe in it, and *convince* them that they are wrong. Trust me, its possible, I've managed it once.:) At least I think I managed.
I used to discuss with a neo-nazi at a BBS I ran. He was a revisionist, and a neo-nazi. Well, after a couple of years of constant arguments, and after I had shut down my BBS and moved from where I lived to Oslo (where I now reside and study) - I met this guy. He was no longer a nazi. He didn't believe in it anymore. I do think I had something to do with it, but he never admitted *that*:)
But, its possible to reform hardcore nazis. They just need to hear the truth. If you try to supress their opinion, they believe more and more in "Big Brother" who tries to hide the one Truth that they've discovered. The only way to convince them if is they're allowed an open argument - without shouting from people - like "Goto hell, you nazi bastard". That way - you never win. You'll have to argue, calmly - and refute each of their arguments, again and again (because they WILL repeat them, clining to their beliefs, for al ong time).
.. Point is - censorship is NOT the way to go. Free speech - even for nazis and other unpopular opinions - is the only way.
-- "Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
What we need to do is get together and draft a declaration of independance -- of the internet, from the worldwide governments.
Governments keep on interfering -- the US government does it without even thinking about it, but France, Canada, the UK, and probably lots of other countries have meddled in our affairs as well.
If governments want something from us, they should *ask* for it, and negotiate for it. Want us to respect your copyrights? Convince us to sign on to the WIPO rules. Want us to censor people because you don't like what they say about you? Tough, we're not going to give you that;-)
An independant internet would solve many other problems as well. Few people would argue that patents have no value, but in order to establish a patent on the internet one is pretty much obligated to register it in every nation in the world; with an internet government such a patent could be granted once at much reduced cost. Similarly, an internet government could pass useful laws including requiring standards compliance.
What it comes down to is that the internet both needs to have a governing body in order to enforce reasonable conduct on its members, and needs to be free of interference from external governments.
Even on the Internet, there must be respect for law and repect for individual country's laws.
In the US for instance, we have laws about child pornography which may not exist in other places.
In France, just as in Canada, England and Germany, racism is against the law.
Whether you agree with this law or not does not change the fact that it's not up to Americans whether they agree or not. It's up to the French citizens how they decide to run thier own country. That is how democracy works.
If you respect democracy, then you must allow countries to run thier country the way they want.
The fact they recognize that the Internet is international only shows how complicated this issue is for everyone.
I doubt that all these negative posts would come if we found the US government was going to some small nation with a child pornography or snuff film sale.
There is a huge difference between free speech and free action. I don't care if some f*cker shaves his head and shouts nazi propaganda; I don't have to listen or pay attention. I do care if the same bastard starts clubbing people in the streets. The law on how you express your opinions won't do much (from the article: Under French law, it is illegal to exhibit or sell objects with racist overtones). The same ideas can be expressed without being immediately obvious, just like the nazis didn't exactly win elections in Germany on the 'kill-the-Jews' platform. They did it by pushing socialist work reform and initially exploiting sentiments of national pride, not racial hatred. I think it's much more dangerous to allow partial exposure to certain ideas; better to expose them in their full foolishness. Even worse, technically under French law, you can kiss goodbye any chance of buying Hegel, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Twain, or any numerous others with 'questionable' content. This is not just a question of sensitivity to racial issues; it's a way to ignore anything even remotely unplesaant, and, IMHO, is going to create serious problems in the future.
- this is not "France trying to rule the Internet". Yahoo France is a registered company here, and the problem was because these auctions were accessible from the yahoo.fr portal.
According to both the referenced articles, these items weren't accessible from yahoo.fr, only from yahoo.com--which yahoo.fr of course links to. That would mean that this, even before touching upon the content itself (or, indeed, the laws in question), is Yet Another Linking Lawsuit(TM), the very concept of which I hope we can agree is absurd. If, on the other hand, Reuter's and AP have it wrong, could you post a link to an article with the real facts?
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? I'm not a Nazi by any means, and don't even agree remotley with their politics or the atrocities of WWII.
But what the hell is wrong with trading the Nazi relics of the war? Some of us are history nuts who collect anything from WWII. Some of us keep momentos of teh past around for people of the future to learn from.
Not allowing people to trade relics doesn't mean that it will all go away. Alowing someone to own a relic of the Nazi past doesn't make them an instant Nazi. I really don't even see why there's a problem here.
This will certainly make an interesting case for other online auction style businesses, especially eBay.
Currently eBay US has a policy with regards to potentially offensive material, which says in part: "eBay has always exercised judgment in allowing or disallowing certain listings in the best interest of the community. Therefore, eBay will judiciously disallow listings or items that promote hatred, violence, or racial intolerance, including items that promote organizations (such as the KKK, Nazis, neo-Nazis, Skinheads, Aryan Nation) with such views. eBay will review listings that are brought to its attention by the community, and will look at the entire listing to determine whether it falls within this rule.
eBay recognizes that some older relics of organizations that promoted hate, violence or racial intolerance are legitimate collectible items that serve as a reminder of past injustices or horrors. Obviously, the past cannot be erased, and such relics can serve as important reminders and educational tools in a community that can learn from the past. Therefore, relics of groups such as the KKK or Nazi Germany may be listed on eBay, provided that they are at least 50 years old, and the listing is not used as a platform to glorify or promote the organization or its values. Listings of such items that are not 50 years old will be removed when brought to our attention. Sellers must state the approximate age of the item within the description. "
Therefore if the item is over 50 years old and has historical value it is OK to be listed on eBay. I know for a fact, as an eBay employee, that all Nazi memorabillia is banned from being listed on the eBay Germany site and eBay members who are registered as living in Germany are actively blocked from bidding on such items, irrelevant of which eBay site they are listed on.
The actively blocking users is the same for the eBay Adults Only section. Any member who has registered as living in Australia, is unable to access the eBay Adults Only section, whether they are willing to provide age verification or not. This policy helps eBay to comply with other countrys' laws outside of the US. The eBay Australia site simply does not have an Adults Only sections.
So technically it is certainly possbile to block certain users, living in a particular geographic region, from certain areas of the site.
This ruling will certainly prove interesting for eBay as they are planning further international expansion into Europe in the near future, including one particularly relevant nation.
Damn it, I thought I saw some Mongolian artifacts for sale on Yahoo the other day. Don't the French realize the Mongols slaughtered millions of innocent men, women and children? They wiped out entire towns in the worst, bloody ways possible.
Apparently the French endorse the actions of Genghis Kahn.
Death Camp Paraphanalia decorates my favorite bar! (Score:2)
There's a great bar in Chicago on North Avenue called "The Exit" that has all kinds of death camp memorabilia (gas masks, etc.) hanging above the bar. It is a punk/fetish dive, and while I'm pretty sure all of the "paraphanalia" actually came from an Army Surplus Store (and not a Nazi death camp) the motif is pretty clear.
Does this offend people. Almost certainly. That is part of the idea (and part of the place's charm, as an aging punk dive). They also serve a disgusting mix of Jaegermeister and Schnapps called a "Dead Nazi."
Censorship is never the answer - if the paraphanalia is being used for hate speach, you merely drive such speach underground and outlaw legitimate uses, including such effective countermeasures as mockery and paradoy. Remember Castle Wolfenstein? Banned in Germany because of the swastika flags in the background, despite the fact that the hero (you) was running around shooting Nazis, rather the opposite of singing "Deutschland Ueber Alles" I would say. Clearly even the best intended and most justifiable forms of censorship run amok, given enough time and the diversity of human experience and expression.
The answer, instead of censorship, is to meet hate speach where it occurs head on, with intelligent counter-arguments, mockery, social stigmatization, and all of the other tools we as human beings have to encourage and even pressure people to change their offensive behavior without trampling on their civil rights.
Addendum, sorta (Score:2)
Several points to clarify (Score:5)
- this is not the french govt suing. Yahoo is sued by 2 anti-racist organizations
- this is not "France trying to rule the Internet". Yahoo France is a registered company here, and the problem was because these auctions were accessible from the yahoo.fr portal.
I usually don't agree with censorship, neither do I agree with racism or nazism. But due to various immigration and racism problems, France has passed several laws that forbids such things as "incentive to hatred racial" (sorry for the poor translation).
We have most of the same censorship problems that you experience in the US. The rules are simply a little bit different. As our history is.
Lots of things are allowed in France and are not in the US...
Re:I'll tell you... (Score:3)
Who's been sued ? (Score:2)
Well, for once, France has not embarked in yet another overseas crusade as the article seems to infere. The defendant was not Yahoo.com (US) but its French subsidiary, Yahoo.fr. What is "innovative" in this decision is that Yahoo.fr, in France, has been found liable for facts taking place in the US.
The substantiation behind this de facto solidarity is not simply that Yahoo.com is a major investor in Yahoo.fr. It would completly contradict the European dogma on strict respect of national sovereignty and opposition to cross-border legislations (e.g. D'Amato act). Instead, it was found that, as Yahoo.fr points to Yahoo.com's services (including the offending auctions) and integrates them as a part of its own content, among things, as part of its search engines, Yahoo.fr is, as a consequence, a willfull contributor to the offense.
If Yahoo.fr's content was completly separate from Yahoo.com or if Yahoo.fr was making some serious effort to filter nazi paraphernalia out of its search results (and links), there would no offender to prosecute in France.
So why can't Yahoo.fr use a safe harbor disculpation ? First, there's no well-established doctrine about that in France, and that sometime leads to fairly stupid results. See what happened to altern.org last year. More compeling, the relations between Yahoo.com and Yahoo.fr are not simply passive, as an independant (and blind) search engine would be. This integration of US content in Yahoo.fr offer is a result of a voluntary and highly publicized strategy of cross-licensing and integration.
If an otherwizely independant French portal, say www.MonBeretBasqueEtMaBaguette.fr, had the same pattern of cross-licensing with Yahoo.com and was also actively indexing nazi stuff from Yahoo.com, the liability would be exactly the same.
The whole affair has nothing to do with an insidious overreach of sovereignty, and is in fact strictly Franco-Frenchy
what is this madness? (Score:2)
No, people don't hate the French. Anymore than they hate any other country. All countries around the world make mistakes. Look at the US. Look at Britain. My god look at the US and our censorship problems! The UK and us have ECHELON, for God's sake. Going on about what country is hated, or deserves being singled out for hate, is bigotry in motion - and it leaves you and your nationality wide open to be judged yourself. (BTW I'm a hard core American.)
Hell, During WWII 90% of the French people were yellow-bellied German collaborators. The whole stinking EU would be speaking German today if it wasn't for the USA bailing the 'Allies' out TWICE this century. The Euro-Peons deserve each other. [slashdot.org]
Oh, now this is a great way to express the principles by which we decry the racism of Naziism. By dissing the Europeans like this, and singing the "America is K-Rad 31337 and we Ruulz all over you weak europeans" jingosong, you're showing the world how bigoted you are. In fact, it is remarks like this that make America a hated country!
Of all the evil things Hitler can be blamed for, at least he beat the shit out of the French. [slashdot.org]
Oh I bet this troll thought that was funny. (Where are the moderators when ya need 'em?) I don't think the sad nature of this remark needs be explained...do you?
(I can go on for quite a while with more example posts [slashdot.org], but I won't. Y'all get the point.)
The sad part is this stuff isn't getting marked or replied to as flamebait - at least it wasn't as of my writing this piece of protestdrivel. So where is all the anti-racism now? Speaking of stereotypes, don't y'all think this will reflect badly on slashdot posters as a whole?
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Freedom of Speech is Absolute (Score:2)
This doesn't derive from some bullshit "endowed by their creator" crap. It derives from the simple fact that no one has any basis for a right to silence me. If you say you have a right to tell me I can't be a racist, it's your place to justify it. You have no more right to tell me I can't go around saying "aryans uber alles" than I do to tell the jehovah's witness they can't go around saying "refuse transfusions".
If those items are causing grief to any individual, that individual should grow some thicker skin, or should bury their head in the sand. The holocaust happened. Ignoring it won't undo it. There are neo-nazis in France. Telling them they can't use the internet to communicate won't make them decent people.
What you are advocating is mind control. It's forcing your particular world view on everyone. Isn't this exactly the problem with the nazis to begin with? Maybe we should burn all books advocating censorship?
If you think anyone, any county, any collection of bullies who call themselves "parliament" or "congress" or the "diet" or the "pope" has a right to censor anyone, tell me why. Where does he get this right? If the french have the right to prohibit sales of nazi memorabilia, do you think the Ayatollah has a right to prohibit the sale of Salman Rushdie's work?
Does anyone have the right to censor anyone else, or not? Only some people? How do we know who has a right to censor what? Do we come and ask you whenever it comes up? I mean, I'm glad you could clear it up that this particular instance is one in which the people we don't like should be censored, but what about other situations? Like, should people who say der Fuehrer is a little on the nutty side be sent to the camps as well? How about people who say Mao isn't all that great?
Does it depend on where the people live? I mean, does the Ayatollah's jurisdiction to prohibit Salman Rushdie from writing only apply to people in Iran buying Rushdie's books, or to anyone anywhere buying a book originally written in Iran, or only off a website hosted in Iran?
As an atheist, I'm offended by about 99% of all religious sites on the web. Does this mean they should be taken down? As a libertarian, I'm offended by assholes like you who think they have the right to dictate their morality to the whole fucking world. Do I have the right to ask Rob to yank your account and delete this post?
The sad thing is that most of the people on the planet think that you are being reasonable. I wish I could live somewhere else. My options for other countries to move to are even being eroded as the UN and other international organizations further homogenize the planet. The US seems the best place to live right now, but that's sort of like saying "I'd rather have the picture of the man being beheaded on my wall than the one of the child being run over by a lawn mower".
Before you advocate this moralistic imperialism, I urge you to consider whether your morals are any more objective than anyone elses, and what would happen if everyone attempted to force their morals on everyone else like you are encouraging.
--Kevin
What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander (Score:3)
Stupid legal action like this needs to stop.
This hasn't actually happened yet (Score:2)
This may have an effect on Yahoos ability to make peering agreements with French telecom companies
___
about 70 years too late!! (Score:2)
--
J Perry Fecteau, 5-time Mr. Internet
Ejercisio Perfecto [nai.net]: from Geek to GOD in WEEKS!
Generalise the problem (Score:3)
- Website X hosted in Country A
- Country B declares some information in X illegal to access for citizens of B
- Court in B takes action, ordering X to stop broadcasting to citizens of B
X's options areHow about alternative, equivalent scenarios?
Similar Story? (Score:2)
Re:What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gande (Score:2)
Perhaps so, but Yahoo! isn't doing this. This isn't a matter of cultural hegemony. Yahoo! doesn't permit auctions of Nazi paraphernalia on its French site, out of respect to French law and French sensibilities. This case is about what happens on the US auction site, since French citizens can access (and presumably bid on) auctions there for such paraphernalia. These items are quite legal to sell in the US but illegal to sell in France.
Without national firewalls, there just is no way to prevent French citizens from accessing a US site, with the Internet as presently constituted.
Let me suggest that the onus should be on the French citizens who are breaking French laws in France. Consider that if a French citizen bids on and wins a US auction for Nazi paraphernalia, he or she then has the problem of actually receiving the illegal merchandise. It is preventing the physical act of importation that the French should focus on. And that's their responsibility, not Yahoo!'s.
Re:Country codes embedded in IP packet options? (Score:2)
That's the thing. France doesn't want Yahoo to censor THEM. They just want them to censor someone ELSE.
Personally, if some moron wants to trade Mein Kampf online or someone's selling old WW2 pistols, I could personally give a damn. My grandfather served in France during WW2. I understand the atrocities that went on.
I'm not saying "forget what has gone before". Quite the opposite. Remember, and learn.
The French government is trying to blot out a spot in history simply because they find it personally repugnant. All they're doing is making it easier for such things to happen again.
Banning sales of things, simply because they evoke emotional response from someone is ridiculous. That leaves EVERTHING open to banning.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Re:HAHAHAHA!!I am rolling on the floor with laught (Score:2)
Helms-Burton would, if not stonewalled by Clinton, ban entry into the US the officers of corporations which accepted property stolen from US corporattions by the Cuban Communists.
If you want to bash something, get the facts first.
Declare inTERdependance (Score:5)
I think a much more realistic assessment is that countries will react toward the internet in much the same way they have toward international trading. They will form the WITO (World Information Trading Organization). Trade in, and access to information is just as important as access to goods and will become even more valuable. The info will increasingly be essential to countries to secure goods and maintain the IP (information property) allowing an economy to sustain itself.
We have yet to take more than the first baby steps toward countries forming internet trade alliances. We have international groups forming standards that are often ignored by the companies making the stuff of the internet but this will likely change once legislators here and abroad start passing laws requireing companies to adhere religously to set standards in order to sell goods in that country complete with policing rules. We will than have other countries wanting to join in these markets and if they don't like the rules tough luck.
Mabey we will have a few markets worldwide but we all know the power of the allmighty buck and if the US or the EU pass these laws first that will set the trend. Soon countries (and their citizens) will become familiar with the idea of global laws and global a truly global marketplace complete with global governance.
Soon countries will have to sign onto more and more global decision making bodies (GATT, WTO etc) to solve disputes among them ultimately leading to global governance. It is court actions like this one by the French and many other by the US and other that will lead to these governing councils. Be it this year or in the next century it will happen.
The internet may actually unite the world rather than declare independence from it.
Re:Don't Jump to Conclusions (Score:3)
You forget that the swastika was stolen by the Nazis. It is an ancient and sacred symbol for Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains. So I own pictures that contain swastikas, not because I am a Nazi, but because I am Buddhist. Maybe I should tell my Jewish roomate, and my Chinese roomate, and my Thai girlfriend to watch their backs because I might become a "jew/black/gay beating facism-loving jerk" at any moment, but my incling is that this is not a real danger.
Secondly, there is every reason to own Nazi artifacts if you are a historian. There is no substitute for a primary source, and the propaganda and imagery created by the Nazis is a very important cultural artifact. I believe the saying is something along the lines of "Those who forget (or attempt to push away) the past are doomed to repeat its mistakes." The Nazi era is a time I would just as soon not repeat; as such, I am very interested in remembering.
Re:Speech as Action (Score:2)
Re:There is no such thing as "good censorship" (Score:2)
Re:Don't Jump to Conclusions (Score:3)
Cool. I'm Hindu, the swastika is a very important religious symbol, and has been for the past 3000+ years.
So does this mean that neither I, nor the 800+ million Hindus today can trade in our religious items?
Hold on, Buddhists and Jains also use it, though to a lesser extent.
So do we ban it just because a group of bigoted scum used it?
Hold on, weren't the Crusades and Inquisition carried out under the cross? The Frogs should ban that as well.
Re:What's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? (Score:2)
The problem is, as usual, political. Let me try to explain how I see it.
Back in 1945, when WWII was over, people said to each other: 'We do not want this to happen ever again' -- like they said after WWI :-( -- The Germans and their collaborators were punished and the Good Guys tried to get on with their lifes. And all was good because the Good Guys won. And they tried to banish all traces of nazism.
Then a second generation stood up and asked their parents: 'but what did YOU do in the war?', to which a lot of parents replied: 'I had very strong thoughts against the situation' or 'I once directed an officer the wrong way' or 'I has this Jewish neighbour, I helped him and en passant nicked all his valuables, I didn't like Jews anyway'. And this second generation scorned their parents for it, felt guilty about their parents and wrote way too many books about it.
And now this second generation is in control, and people ask them: 'what did the previous governements do?' to which they have to reply 'we helped the oppressors every way we could -- that really taught them a lesson'. And they get a lot of bad press about it.
And then some gov-related guy(m/f) in France sees that you can buy nazi-thingies in France. And he sees the questions arising: 'What is the french government doing against the rise of neo-nazis'. And now they can answer: 'we did everything we could'.
Of course, this is only a reason for their actions, not a justification of it. But please note that it's not just France -- a lot of (north-west) european countries could have done this.
(No, I'm not French)
Re:What's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? (Score:2)
Pretending that people have never hated other people won't keep people from hating each other in the future. They print Swastikas in history books and show them in museums so that people can learn what could provoke other people to such terrifying acts.
I would be interested to see the uniform my Grandfather fought in, and I would be just as interested to see the uniforms of the men he thought. Whether you like it or not, the symbols and the "hate speech" which went with them changed the world in ways that directly affect you every day. You are a fool to call your own history trash.
Re:Is this a free speech issue? (Score:2)
If the good citizens of La France don't want to see pictures and accounts of those voluntary transactions, then let them pull themselves off the internet, or configure all routers at the border to block yahoo's subnet.
Let them decide for themselves what they see, not what everyone sees.
Re:Santity of Law (Score:5)
Easy way to make 10,000 francs (Score:2)
Not that Yahoo can't space the $1300 bucks, but why should they pay? Whats going to happen other than the over-hyped bad PR they're gonna get? I can imagine the French impotently trying to enforce this and push their laws onto other countries.
The internet is global, that doesn't mean every law from every country simultaneously
apply to every ISP. You connect to the United States you get United States content.
Read the post! (Score:2)
Re:This hasn't actually happened yet (Score:3)
Swastika is not really a hate symbol (Score:3)
You can think of it as a symbol of hate because of the actions of one group as long as you want to but until I die it will mean goodwill and prosperity to me. I would not do anything as foolish as wearing a swastika in public due to the ignorance of the populace at large of the symbols true origin.
"swastika (swst-k) n. The emblem of Nazi Germany, officially adopted in 1935. An ancient cosmic or religious symbol formed by a Greek cross with the ends of the arms bent at right angles in either a clockwise or a counterclockwise direction. -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ [Sanskrit svastika, sign of good luck, swastika, from svasti, well-being; see su- in Indo-European Roots.]"
Re:Sixty Years Belated... (Score:2)
Actualy, yes, you are. Kiddie porn is illegal, therefore the people who want to distribute those kinds of pictures are not free to do so. Therefore, a law banning kiddie porn has restricted the Freedom of certain individuals.
The thing is, modern society will accept laws that may in one way or another restrict their freedom, in order to control a smaller minority who may be a threat to the majority. Placing people in prison is another example, you remove certain peoples rights from them in order to protect the rights of the majority.
Note for the knee-jerkers: I am not condoning kiddie porn.
Re:Speech as Action (Score:2)
Under US laws you can't sell or buy drugs. But you can do that in Netherland, so it must be a free speech issue for the Netherlanders not to be able to sell drugs to the US. Give them the right to sell drugs to the US.
Or you can also let the pedophiliacs buy nude kids picture or kids porno, hey if you don't do so you get over their freedom of speech
You don't know the French people but I assure you they (including all the geeks, pro free-speech and open-source advocates) agree with this law. We don't like seeing US people making money from the grave of millions.
French They have lost their freedom of for 5 years during WWII, comparing that the Slashdot against M$ case is pityful. But they support free speech and have a Nazi-like political party since more than 20 years. It's not the ideas, it's the symbols that are not allowed.
Freedom of thoughts, not physical items (Score:2)
If we don't stand up together soon, the governments will stand up over us. And we'l never have the chance again. I wonder what would happen if a group declared the independence of the Internet Republic, and themselves as its government (And of course created some voting website or whatever to vote for the next internet government). I wonder how the US and the EU and all the other countries would react?
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
what we need in order to fix this... (Score:4)
See how efficient that is?
I say we have a no confidence vote for UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Who's with me?
- Palpatine
========================
63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
Re:What's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? (Score:3)
Interesting move to pander completely to our sympathies by mentioning the victims, I'm sure they feel just as bad when they hear the word "Hitler" but we keep that around for some reason. Maybe because it would be hard to put WWII in the history books without it.
Nazi sympathizers buy these symbols? So? If they weren't for sale they'd just make their own, your implication that symbols empower neo-Nazis is laughable. Thats really your point here, do these symbols give some long-forgotten third reich magic to the users like some hackneyed TV plot?
Exactly why would a rational Frenchman care if an already neo-Nazi buys a Hitler youth knife? The screaming hysterical Frenchmen probably cares, but that doesn't mean we should.
In the end I'd rather have the choice between helpful and hateful speech than people like you deciding for me.
This is RIDICULOUS! (Score:3)
It's pretty hard for them to control all the auctions that go on on their site... and even though they may be able to, who says they should?
C'mon, France, I understand that this is reminiscent of a horrible time, but give it up already. The sale of this stuff is harmless... just a bunch of items for collectors.
-- Dr. Eldarion --
It's not what it is, it's something else.
In the famous words of . . (Score:3)
"Technically anything is possible, but Politicaly? NO!"
___
Only reasonable solution... (Score:4)
Re:This hasn't actually happened yet (Score:5)
Agreed, I hope Yahoo tells them to get stuffed, and that this serves an example to overseas sites threatened by stupid US laws.
An "world government" would not fix this - it would just make it worse. The Europeans will want anything related to nazis banned, the US will want anything related to anonymously sharing files and encryption banned, Australia will lobby for everyone to use censorware (god bless my fucked-up country), moslem countries will want anything derogatory about their religion to be banned, China will throw fits everytime someone mentions their government in less than glowing terms. I wouldn't wish that job on my worst enemy!
Why can't people be tolerant of other people's beliefs? Yes, even neonazis - otherwise you are just emulating them. That's right - the French government/legal system is emulating the very group they are trying to condemn - how's that for irony?
P.S. My favourite quote:
So a swastika badge and a white hood have "racist overtones". What happens when the next cult uses a flower or a tree? - I guess we'll have to ban those as well.
"There are only two things that are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the former."
any sufficiently effective propaganda... (Score:4)
I know a number of people that have Stalin posters simply because they are interesting works, not because they endorse communism or genocide, and it is perfectly fine to do so nearly everywhere -- why should Nazi media be any different?
--
Re:Speech as Action (Score:5)
You see, I don't exist. No, really, I don't. I can prove it. Go ahead and find my ancestors.
You can't, they didn't exist. The village they lived in didn't exist either. Not ever, not nohow. Therefore, I don't exist.
In Romania the holocoust was so complete that at the end of the war it is figured there were, approxamately, NO Jews. No villages where the Jews had lived. No records of there EVER having been Jew in the country. Those that seem to remember there having been Jews must have been mistaken.
The eradication was chillingly total.
Of course I can't prove this myself. So far as I can show you there were never any Jews. Neat huh?
I have some idea of the way speach was used to promote the cause of Nazism. I ALSO have some idea of the way *repression* of speach was used by the Nazis.
Me, I'd rather have them giving talks in the public halls rather than skulking in the alleys. If their speach has that sort of power this place already isn't a fit place to live, but at least I'll KNOW it!
Re:What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gande (Score:5)
1) Any time you pass a law to restrict something (porn, casino, selling drugs online,
2) You end up with countries (like this case) trying to regulate what's happening in other countries.
The broader problem, be it with France, Germany (remember Germany and CompuServe?) or anywhere else, is that we seem to confuse a belief in the goodness of freedom of the exchange of information and ideas between individuals with the freedom of commercial services to propagate anything they wish regardless of national laws, cultures or sensibilities.
Germany in particular has some rather strong legislation against promulgating any images or items that are Nazi or Nazi-like. The French have strong feelings on this score as well, perhaps because they're still torn between the romanticized Resistance and Vichy's roundup and handover of France's Jews to Hitler.
Whatever the cause, an online venue becomes a "place," and apparently the French don't want certain kinds of "places" on their cybersoil.
Unlike these countries, in the USA we have fairly wide liberties (albeit threatened), because as a people we can be controlled and manipulated by passive consumption of television and whatever else passes for mass entertainment, like spectator sports. Notice that the people the big corporations are challenging are outfits like 2600 who don't and won't fit into the groove. American culture is sort of a universal solvent - it gives one a sense of empowerment but mainly empowerment to consume information, ideas, and opinions delivered by corporate boardrooms - unless you choose to step outside the box, and at that point things get uncomfortable.
Other societies vest other authorities as arbiters of what's right or wrong in their cultures. Would I prefer some Left-Bank deconstructionist 's views on culture to those of Steve Case? That's what we're up against these days. So yeah, we do have a problem, Houston, but it's deeper than laws and enforcement.
Dave
Re:What's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? (Score:4)
I would strongly disagree. Locked in a trunk in my dads attic is a bloodstained Nazi flag complete with five bullet holes, sitting next to a box containing a Purple Heart. You want to know why that Nazi flag is important to me? In December of 1944 my grandfather and his unit were tied up in some intensive fighting in France. One day his unit was crossing some fields when they were ambushed by several armored Nazi units. Although they were seriously outgunned they fought back hard and suceeded in destroying five of the units before the rest pulled back. Afterwards my grandfather climbed on top of one of the wrecked vehicles and pulled down the Nazi flag to keep as a momento...with the five bulletholes already added. Two days later his unit was entering a small French village when they were attacked by snipers, and my grandfather was shot in the neck within the first few minutes of fighting. His buddy, looking for something to staunch the bloodflow, found the Nazi flag, pushed it into the wound, and held it there until a medic could arrive to help him...probably saving his life.
To me, that Nazi flag is a symbol of the hell my grandfather went through to make sure we would continue to live in a free society, and of the suffering he endured because of it.
So please don't call it trash...to some of us it is much more. I would hate to think that we are entering a world where such an important momento to my family could be made illegal because it offends somebody. I would never consider selling the flag, but allowing governments to regulate momentos like this is a step in that direction.
Re:What's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? (Score:5)
Even though I don't like neo-nazism, or nazism - I won't try to censor it. True free speech doesn't limit hate-speech. If you start saying that "that and that should not be legal to talk about" - then its no longer freedom of speech. Yes, the nazis resisted freedom of speech - but we're just as bad, if we refuse them their *RIGHT* to speak about their opinion.
The only way to beat nazism (if that is what we want, that is at least what I want), is to argue against it. You have to *argue* against those who believe in it, and *convince* them that they are wrong. Trust me, its possible, I've managed it once.
I used to discuss with a neo-nazi at a BBS I ran. He was a revisionist, and a neo-nazi. Well, after a couple of years of constant arguments, and after I had shut down my BBS and moved from where I lived to Oslo (where I now reside and study) - I met this guy. He was no longer a nazi. He didn't believe in it anymore. I do think I had something to do with it, but he never admitted *that*
But, its possible to reform hardcore nazis. They just need to hear the truth. If you try to supress their opinion, they believe more and more in "Big Brother" who tries to hide the one Truth that they've discovered. The only way to convince them if is they're allowed an open argument - without shouting from people - like "Goto hell, you nazi bastard". That way - you never win. You'll have to argue, calmly - and refute each of their arguments, again and again (because they WILL repeat them, clining to their beliefs, for al ong time).
.. Point is - censorship is NOT the way to go. Free speech - even for nazis and other unpopular opinions - is the only way.
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
Declare independance (Score:5)
Governments keep on interfering -- the US government does it without even thinking about it, but France, Canada, the UK, and probably lots of other countries have meddled in our affairs as well.
If governments want something from us, they should *ask* for it, and negotiate for it. Want us to respect your copyrights? Convince us to sign on to the WIPO rules. Want us to censor people because you don't like what they say about you? Tough, we're not going to give you that
An independant internet would solve many other problems as well. Few people would argue that patents have no value, but in order to establish a patent on the internet one is pretty much obligated to register it in every nation in the world; with an internet government such a patent could be granted once at much reduced cost. Similarly, an internet government could pass useful laws including requiring standards compliance.
What it comes down to is that the internet both needs to have a governing body in order to enforce reasonable conduct on its members, and needs to be free of interference from external governments.
Geeks of the world unite!
Santity of Law (Score:3)
In the US for instance, we have laws about child pornography which may not exist in other places.
In France, just as in Canada, England and Germany, racism is against the law.
Whether you agree with this law or not does not change the fact that it's not up to Americans whether they agree or not. It's up to the French citizens how they decide to run thier own country. That is how democracy works.
If you respect democracy, then you must allow countries to run thier country the way they want.
The fact they recognize that the Internet is international only shows how complicated this issue is for everyone.
I doubt that all these negative posts would come if we found the US government was going to some small nation with a child pornography or snuff film sale.
- Serge Wroclawski
Re:Speech as Action (Score:3)
The law on how you express your opinions won't do much (from the article: Under French law, it is illegal to exhibit or sell objects with racist overtones). The same ideas can be expressed without being immediately obvious, just like the nazis didn't exactly win elections in Germany on the 'kill-the-Jews' platform. They did it by pushing socialist work reform and initially exploiting sentiments of national pride, not racial hatred.
I think it's much more dangerous to allow partial exposure to certain ideas; better to expose them in their full foolishness. Even worse, technically under French law, you can kiss goodbye any chance of buying Hegel, Hobbes, Nietzsche, Twain, or any numerous others with 'questionable' content.
This is not just a question of sensitivity to racial issues; it's a way to ignore anything even remotely unplesaant, and, IMHO, is going to create serious problems in the future.
Re:Several points to clarify (Score:4)
- this is not "France trying to rule the Internet". Yahoo France is a registered company here, and the problem was because these auctions were accessible from the yahoo.fr portal.
According to both the referenced articles, these items weren't accessible from yahoo.fr, only from yahoo.com--which yahoo.fr of course links to. That would mean that this, even before touching upon the content itself (or, indeed, the laws in question), is Yet Another Linking Lawsuit(TM), the very concept of which I hope we can agree is absurd. If, on the other hand, Reuter's and AP have it wrong, could you post a link to an article with the real facts?
"A *person* is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."
What's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? (Score:5)
I'm trying to figure out what's wrong with Nazi memorabilia? I'm not a Nazi by any means, and don't even agree remotley with their politics or the atrocities of WWII.
But what the hell is wrong with trading the Nazi relics of the war? Some of us are history nuts who collect anything from WWII. Some of us keep momentos of teh past around for people of the future to learn from.
Not allowing people to trade relics doesn't mean that it will all go away. Alowing someone to own a relic of the Nazi past doesn't make them an instant Nazi. I really don't even see why there's a problem here.
JustinOther Auction Sites (Score:3)
Currently eBay US has a policy with regards to potentially offensive material, which says in part:
"eBay has always exercised judgment in allowing or disallowing certain listings in the best interest of the community. Therefore, eBay will judiciously disallow listings or items that promote hatred, violence, or racial intolerance, including items that promote organizations (such as the KKK, Nazis, neo-Nazis, Skinheads, Aryan Nation) with such views. eBay will review listings that are brought to its attention by the community, and will look at the entire listing to determine whether it falls within this rule.
eBay recognizes that some older relics of organizations that promoted hate, violence or racial intolerance are legitimate collectible items that serve as a reminder of past injustices or horrors. Obviously, the past cannot be erased, and such relics can serve as important reminders and educational tools in a community that can learn from the past. Therefore, relics of groups such as the KKK or Nazi Germany may be listed on eBay, provided that they are at least 50 years old, and the listing is not used as a platform to glorify or promote the organization or its values. Listings of such items that are not 50 years old will be removed when brought to our attention. Sellers must state the approximate age of the item within the description. "
(Found at: http://pages.ebay.com/help/ community/png-offensive.html [ebay.com])
Therefore if the item is over 50 years old and has historical value it is OK to be listed on eBay. I know for a fact, as an eBay employee, that all Nazi memorabillia is banned from being listed on the eBay Germany site and eBay members who are registered as living in Germany are actively blocked from bidding on such items, irrelevant of which eBay site they are listed on.
The actively blocking users is the same for the eBay Adults Only section. Any member who has registered as living in Australia, is unable to access the eBay Adults Only section, whether they are willing to provide age verification or not. This policy helps eBay to comply with other countrys' laws outside of the US. The eBay Australia site simply does not have an Adults Only sections.
So technically it is certainly possbile to block certain users, living in a particular geographic region, from certain areas of the site.
This ruling will certainly prove interesting for eBay as they are planning further international expansion into Europe in the near future, including one particularly relevant nation.
Easy Solution (Score:3)
to refuse connection.
An effective way to make sure French people don't see something that offends them on Yahoo.
Doesn't go far enough (Score:5)
Damn it, I thought I saw some Mongolian artifacts for sale on Yahoo the other day. Don't the French realize the Mongols slaughtered millions of innocent men, women and children? They wiped out entire towns in the worst, bloody ways possible.
Apparently the French endorse the actions of Genghis Kahn.
--