Yahoo! Not Protected From French Anti-Nazi Laws 914
snoopsk writes "An appeals
court ruled that Yahoo is not protected from French legal attacks
due to Nazi-related items sold on Yahoo's auction site. Backed by the
ACLU, Yahoo
intends to defend its First Amendment rights should a French court
try to enforce French anti-hate laws. This case could have huge
implications for free speech online if the French courts are successful
in forcing Yahoo to remove this content.
"
"
too bad... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm personally interested in how this all shakes out with conflicting "freedom" laws.
-Aaron
Re:too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
I can respect cultural differences but not forced laws that are wrong. Example. I respect muslim womens cultural choice to cover their head, if they choose. I DO NOT respect the government making it a law that they must or stoning them for not wearing them.
Respect is earned by respecting others. They don't respect peoples fr
Re:too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the issue here. The French people have laws, and if you want to conduct business with France, you have to obey them. Or are you seriously saying that the French government ought to be subject to American laws and values? This is France we're talking about, not some two bit country like Iraq or Bosnia that we can just invade any time we feel like.
They don't respect peoples freedoms, why should we respect their laws?
You're kidding, right? Respect freedoms? I wonder which government in the world incarcerates more of its citizens than any other? I wonder which government routinely violates the rights of other people in other countries more than any other?
Anyway this whole topic is a tempest in a teapot. France isn't extraditing Yahoo. Nothing's really changed except that the 9th Circuit is going, "Er no, we can't absolve you against the French prosecuting you IN FRANCE. Duh!"
Re:too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
That analogy is not completely correct. Yahoo is not intruding on French homes and pushing Nazi merchandise. It more along the lines of you going into someone's home and demanding they act a certain way. After all it is France who is visiting yahoo's website. If France fines yahoo so offensive they should just go and firewall yahoo, after all I think they have
Re:too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and "cock sandwich".
Re:too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
> rights of other people in other countries more
> than any other?"
>
> France
Wrong. Do your own research to find out. The Amnesty International report is a good place to start. Also look at the list of country who refused to sign the International War Crime Court treaty, then try to deduce who is committing war crimes today and doesn't want to be prosecuted.
All the best.
Re:too bad... (Score:3, Interesting)
> away by pretending it didn't happen.
For your information, french laws in that matter don't do that. At all.
Quite the contrary (at least they try to).
They just force you to tell the truth about that period. You have to remember that some people around the world (like Mel Gibson's father, here in the US) do not really believe that the concentration camps are responsible for "that many deaths among the Jews".
For instance, in France, it is illega
Re:too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently, however, you are willing to stomp on the freedom of foreign powers to govern themselves as they see fit. Presumably, these anti-hate-speech laws were passed through the French democratic process. How can you claim to love freedom while simultaneously denouncing something that was decided through a free vote?
Insisting that all foreign nations govern themselves in a way that seems "fit" to your mind is tantamount to imperialism.
Re:too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
The French courts are trying to enforce French laws. So far nothing wrong with it, in fact this is what they *have* to do. If some law start not being enforced then the whole edifice crumbles (oh, that's against the law, but doesn't matter...)
Now maybe the law is bad and uninforceable, this is a different issue and not for the courts to decide. So far they are doing their job.
Re:too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm still laughing at the "defend their first amendment rights" though, it's a FRENCH court, they have different constitional rights there, an American in France does NOT have a first amendment right to defend. Let's keep the terminology straight people, Yahoo wants to protect what it perceives as the right of free speech of it's business associ
Case History (Score:5, Insightful)
The trouble, of course, is that Yahoo wants to continue doing business in France, and the French courts seem quite willing to seize everything they own in France and pull every dirty trick they can think of to force Yahoo to knuckle under.
Yahoo, and everyone else, should simply stop doing business in France until they come to their senses. It's a shame too, a great country in so many ways - but a country that doesn't recognise freedom of speech cannot be condoned.
NO NO NO NO NO ! (Score:4, Informative)
The French court doesn't want Yahoo to "take down" anything.
The French court simply wants Yahoo to block French users from their auction sites, or at least
make a credible attempt at that. That's controversial enough, no need to make it look even worse.
Look here. [wired.com]
Thomas Miconi
No. yahoo.fr is not the problem. (Score:5, Informative)
It is not specifically targetted at the French market. However, the judge on the case ruled that since French citizens were able to access it, it must comply with French laws.
As other posts mentioned, try to read the post above, replacing "French" with "Chinese" or "Saoudi", to get a feel for what this implies.
Re:too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doen't matter. If the servers are not in France, France's laws mean squat. Regulating web content on a server outside of France is outside of their jurisdiction.
If the French feel so strongly about this, they need to build a Wall of France like the one China has, so they can protect their subjects er, citizens, from all that nasty evil content.
Re:too bad... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:because the French try to dictate our laws to u (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's nearly impossible to get France to extradite ANYONE to ANYWHERE. The death penalty has little to do with it.
Re:because the French try to dictate our laws to u (Score:4, Informative)
as a member of the EU, france must not extradite anyone who could become a subject of capital punishment.
Re:because the French try to dictate our laws to u (Score:3, Insightful)
Bonus points if you know which country tries to dictate others' laws the most at this point in history.
A gold star if you can remember which country's government tried to pressure the EU to ignore its own antitrust laws for our friends at MicroShaft.
People here turn into idiots when someone mentions the french, why is that?
(by the way, I agree with your decision,
Re:too bad... (Score:5, Insightful)
In France and Europe in general neo-Nazi movements are alive and well. Freedom of speech on the Nazi issue is not going to help. If you remember, during the last French presidential election Jean-Marie Le Pen came second behind Jacques Chirac. Le Pen is an outspoken fascist and the more he talks the better he does, to a degree. Remember that Hitler was an excellent public speaker.
If you have a solution to this very serious problem I'm sure a lot of French people would like to hear it. Just mumbling "freedom of speech" without realizing that in the US that freedom is also severly curtailed in some areas (increasingly so in fact) also for good reasons is not helping.
The idea behind this law is that there are some kind of hate speech that should be prohibited, and for better or for worse the sale of Nazi artifacts is bundled into this, presumably for the reason that collectors have more to sell than just artifacts.
I wonder what the situation is in Israel, I'm pretty sure that it's at least as restricted as in France. Would you complain if it was an Israeli court who was after Yahoo?
Re:Because that would be the french thing to do (Score:3, Insightful)
"If it were, they would surely capitulate instantenously."
You know, writing a phrase like this basically says "Yes, I buy into the anti-French propaganda. Yes, I'm amused by jingoism thinly clothed in humour."
This whole "French surrendering" thing really isn't improving European perceptions of Americans...
Re:too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:too bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the Yahoo folks could take a hint from the pr0n folks and simply put up a big banner that says, "If you are French, please note: you may come across pages on Yahoo that have been deemed illegal by your government. If you still wish to view such pages, click [I accept responsibility for viewing illegal pages]. If you wish to be protected from such pages, please click [Take me to the French Ministry of Thought control]
This is obviously a very effective method of controlling access because nobody ever clicks through the [yes, I'm over 18] button unless they really are 18+, right??
WHAT?!? (Score:5, Funny)
*shucks*
Pointless laws (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Pointless laws (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I necessarily agree with the laws, but this is a poor way to go about looking at the problem.
Here's an analogy: murder is illegal. Yet there are still some murders! What a pointless law.
Once again, I do not necessarily agree with the French laws.
Data Embargo... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Data Embargo... (Score:5, Insightful)
And Yahoo will lose one of its biggest markets, what a great idea !
BTW, you might not realize it, but most european countries have the same type of laws as France, so Yahoo would end up losing the whole european market, I'm quite sure they'd prefer to ban Nazi stuff instead of losing half of their market.
Bad luck, the usual US bullying that work with small countries doesn't work with France and the EU, they're too big, you'll have to live with other people's opinions for a change
Re:Data Embargo... (Score:5, Interesting)
Proof that it actually gives a shit, because that caused USA a lot of problems in order to get non-US forces in Iraq, and it still does.
What's the percentage of non-US forces in Iraq ? 10% ? Are the US happy about that ? Nope...
I have people in my own company who are now in Iraq(reservists) because of Bush's idiocy, and they ain't coming back anytime soon because Bush didn't listen to what France had to say and thus almost no real army besides UK is helping USA, so yes, France's and the EU's actions actually have a big impact on american lives.
Now, you can try to convince yourself of the opposite, but it won't bring the boys back home any faster. Only getting european support(and thus UN support) would have.
Re:Data Embargo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Data Embargo... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, you're absolutely right!
Re:French complaints economic, not military (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, if you look at what the _people_ wanted in France/Germany/... you'll see that they all refused a US invasion and they didn't refuse it for these economical reasons, they refused it because they considered that it was ethically wrong.
Re:French complaints economic, not military (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet fucking grass is even greener over there and everyone gets up in the morning with the solemn promise to leave the world a better place at the end of the day.
Nope, they just consider that you're not allowed to invade another country without a valid reason, something the US government doesn't understand it seems.
As for this oldtimer fighting for their freedom, yep he did, like the french helped you get your independance.
Re:French complaints economic, not military (Score:3, Insightful)
oh yeah I forget, who armed Iraq?
It is not even conceivable that the French (and MOST other US ALLIES) looked at the evidence for going to war, weighed it and it came up short? I mean it was proven that the intelligence that "caused" the US to go to war to "protect itself" was faulty.
Maybe they just couldn't bring themselves to sending their country
Uhhh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yahoo intends to defend its First Amendment rights should a French court try to enforce French anti-hate laws.
IANAL, but I'm pretty sure France isn't bound by the United States Constitution.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:4, Informative)
It's a French court telling a US based company what to do in the US.
Re:Uhhh... (Score:4, Informative)
The French position may be unenforceable, and even wrong, but it sure as hell has nothing to do with the 1st amendment.
18 posts and no frech jokes (Score:5, Funny)
Better yet, I surrender.
Here's one... (Score:5, Funny)
Those substances, deodorant and toothpaste.
Thanks, i'll be hear all week, try the veal.
Venue issue... (Score:5, Informative)
The US 9th Circuit Federal Appeals Court said that Yahoo! cannot go running to the US courts to seek protection under the First Amendment from the ruling of a French court... go appeal your losses in France in France!
However, in the same breath they also warned the French that should they ever try to take their French verdict to a US court for help in getting collection, don't bother. You can't get protection from bad French verdicts from the US courts in part because, well, French verdicts don't work here in the first place! So long as Yahoo keeps all of its physical assets out of France, there wouldn't be much the French can do to them.
Re:Venue issue... (Score:5, Interesting)
And there are things France can do. They can block the Yahoo-site
But this makes the internet and the law problems very interesting.
It's Not as Bad as It First Looks (Score:3, Insightful)
If we were to protect Yahoo from any foreign complaint, then we'd have the opposite effecte where someone could just pick someplace where there was no laws to speak of to put up stuff like kiddie porn and 419 scams. (er, uhm, right).
If we want the right to go after illegalities in other countries, then we have to allow the reciprocal right.
Precedant Already Set (Score:4, Informative)
Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme
169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001)
Comity: ...the principle of comity [law.com] is outweighed by the Court's obligation to uphold the First Amendment...
Accordingly, [Yahoo!'s] motion for summary judgment will be granted. Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.
So the French lost already. Why are they trying again?
(Taken from CyberLaw: Text and Cases, 2nd Ed. by Ferrera et.al.)
How is this not a Customs issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Something is happening in another country that is considered illegal activity within France (or where ever). Pot is sold in Holland, there are probably even places that accept phone or fax orders for said pot. But it's still happening in Holland! So if you as a country have a problem with this activity, you have two alternatives in my opinion: block all telephone traffic to said telephone numbers (or, in this case, all traffic to http://auctions.yahoo.com) and/or stop the pot at the border with your own customs service (or, blocking all traffic from http://auctions.yahoo.com).
In either case, it's not a problem for the pot house in Holland. It's not (shouldn't be) their job to enforce the laws of every other country in the world, that is what the police and customs services for each country are for.
You don't like something going on over there? Fine, make sure it can't get in here. Don't expect the people over there to give a flying #$% about your beliefs/laws/whatever (let alone take on the financial responsibility to ensure that your beliefs/laws/whatever aren't broken). It's up to your own government to enforce your own laws. If something is "skirting" the law and making its way into your country, simply cut off it's route into your country and everything is fine. You can't blame the pot shop or the government of Holland if Dutch pot makes its way past your customs service! It's their job to stop it from entering your country in the first place, else what is a customs service paid to do?
On an aside, if I were a decision maker within Yahoo, I'd find it abhorrent that Nazi stuff was being peddled by my company by proxy. I would do my best to make sure it was no longer peddled due to my own personal beliefs. Only governments can censor, private companies can decide what they will and will not profit from. Of course, this has no bearing on the case from a precedent point of view, I just felt it should be said.
of course Yahoo is still protected... in the US (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what the court held at all. They simply ruled that Yahoo can't sue a Frenchman in the US for suing him in France. Any other result would be absurd and an affront to French sovereignty.
The French plaintiff still cannot enforce his judgment in American courts, so American sovereignty is not affected.
The First Amendment is a shield, not a sword.
What I read in the French Press (Score:5, Interesting)
The press also remarks that Yahoo was quite happy to sign-up to the Chinese government's rules even while battling French ones, and attributed that to the larger potential of the Chinese market.
This is indeed a free speech issue, and we in France restrict it
- one may not "promote hate", such as anti-jew, homophobic , anti-immigrants discourse
- one may not divulge the private life of someone else (movie stars, politicians...)
- one may not advocate substance abuse, or any other law-breaking behaviour
On the other end, nudity and sex in particular are very much less frowned upon. We are bemused be the drama in the US over prime time tits, especially since prime time murders are so common.
I think the "private life" part does make sense, and we were quite bemused by Monicagate, both by the fact that Americans made such a fuss about something so private and personal, and that they thought it such a public scandal. We for example learned a few years before his death (couple of years after Monicagate ?) that our previous president (Miterrand) had an illegitimate teenage daughter by a regular lover. The main debate was on whether the newspapers shouldn't have held their tongues.
The "hate speech" and "law breaking" aspects are more debatable. The law aims to avoid the promotion of hate and such, but the net result is that these issues can barely be discussed publicly, ie rationally. It does give a weapon to sue neo-nazis and far-right groups though.
Re:What I read in the French Press (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides the whole Political Correctness issue (which seems to have risen to Kafka-esque levels in the US), I'm pretty sure that there are dozens of laws that can be used to shut somebody up (including sending 'm off to a prison many countries consider to be infringing against Human Rights conventions!). When defending 'free speech', in the end it all comes down to who has the best (most expensive) lawyers, or has paid the most campaign money.
France has anti-nazi laws because of the horrible impact WW2 had on all people involved, just as you guys have made your own country less free to nail them terrorists after 9/11.
Are these good laws? For some they are, for others they aren't... But they both were the result of a 'democratic' process, and ultimately it is up to you (the individual voter) to overturn them if they are not in your best interests.
How about Dutch pot in the US? (Score:5, Interesting)
Should Dutch companies be allowed to ship pot to the US because in Holland that's allowed?
Should Canadian e-commerce pharmacies be allowed to ship cheaper medical drugs to the US? The US isn't very happy about that right now...
Ahh, the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
The same is seen on US TV. It seems to be ok to slaughter dozens of people, but be "Oh God" if you can see a nipple.
I, personally, do not believe that Nazi propaganda deserves this protection.
That said, of course it is rediculous to subject internet sites to all laws of every country that can access them. That would make almost every site illegal as you probably can always find a country in which the content is illegal.
If the french do not like the content, why don't *they* block it, or enforce it through *their* internet providers?!
This is news??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Beware! French governement revokes freedom of speech of USA citizens.
To people who use their brain:
French government enforces local laws on companies conducting commerce in France.
If Yahoo markets itself to french citizens and conducts commerce with french citizens (to buy nazi related material), yahoo, *by choice* is subjecting itself to the law of France.
What would you have otherwise? Yahoo be immune from litigation in all countries bar the USA just because their HQ is in the US? Wake up, if you choose to do business in a country you are subject to the law of that country (having a website end in
But hey if you are too stupid to think, I have a large tower with great views situated in prime real-estate in the middle of Paris for sale...
Good! (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, the other solution (every country's laws apply in that country and nowhere else) would make more sense, but there are these darn precedents and the US desire to rule the world...
Man.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US is certainly not against prosecuting international companies with an US presence or even those without an US presence. For example De Beers, convicted in an US anti-trust suit despite having no US presence. Thus, no funds to cease which is really the difference here.
Let us, for the sake of argument say I was running a drug company, headquartered in a foreign nation. In the
Appealing a French case in US court? If you think that's a good idea, just wait until the French court appeals the US case. If you find that to be a "violation of your sovereignty", maybe you'll understand why the French would think the same.
Following the same principles as the De Beers case, yahoo.com could be sued in France even if there was no yahoo.fr. It's just that the French courts actually have something to collect. Don't like it? Well they're behaving like US courts. We don't like that either.
Kjella
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's a link (Score:4, Insightful)
There's some irony in that since the case is about the French court system pushing their law on a US site on US soil meant for a US audience.
However, the question remains:
The internet is making borders seem more artificial than ever, yet behind each border hides a slightly different sets and rules to abide.
This is probably not tenable in the long run.
Re:Here's a link (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's a link (Score:5, Insightful)
But we do a fine job of not mentioning the genocide of Native Americans, including but not limited to the fact that Indian Health Service routinely sterilized women as late as 1970 [egilman.com]. Recently we're getting a little better about this, as some modern advanced history books actually talk about stuff like The Longest Walk now, but this stuff happened much longer ago than WWII.
Also, they're not ( in theory ) so much trying to cover up the *history*, as to keep the *current* bunch of Nazis from preaching the gospel of hate, and gaining acceptability through their icons. Not that such a tack is likely to work... but these laws are in fact not unlike anti-gang laws in the US. Except you can still *buy* red and blue bandannas. Just don't try to wear one to school...
as a native american.... (Score:5, Insightful)
but compared to most any other invading race at that time, you pick, germans, french, chinese, english, even portugese... it was comparable. that is what tended to happen in that stage of history.
my only problem is that our genetic diversity is now large enough to support ourselves as a distinct race, but this is also happening all over the world in australia, africa, and south america.
but anyways, too many people try to play the victim. how far back do you want to go as far as grudge-holding?
as far as the sterilization in 1970, im not saying i dont believe you, but such things were not widespread past ww2. now before that, i have some amazing stories to tell about my grandparents and before that, but I've ranted enough. We have had 70 years, several generations, to get over it.
Now look at any other 'genocided' culture, jews, slavs, whatever. They've managed to move on. Look to the future, not to the past.
Turtle Mountain Anishinabe (ND), reservation land owning, casino money-getting, on the census as such.
Re:Here's a link (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Here's a link (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you spout more ignorant bullshit? To the people who moderated this up: this is completely inaccurate. I doubt that the poster could even label the countries of Europe on a map let alone tell you how modern European history is taught on the continent.
Re:Here's a link (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so present that professing Nazism today is now not considered as free speech. This ideology was given a try and resulted in tens of millions of people killed all over Europe. There's no more benefit of the doubt, no room left for public debate. The case is settled. Nazism is pure unadulterated evil. Its ideas do kill people and must not be tolerated in a civilized society.
There is one thing you must know about Nazism to understand why it is actively repressed in Europe. Nazism emerged from a democracy (while Stalinism emerged from a dictorial environment). Germany's Weimar Republic may have been dysfunctionnal and rife with political violence but it was a democracy nonetheless. Adolf Hitler came to power by the polls and gained a large following by convincing people far more than by coercing them. So there is no illusion in Europe on the ability of democracies to deal with this kind of ideas by the mere virtue of democratic debate. We know all too well how totalitarian ideologies can fall through the cracks and use momentary difficulties to impose themselves. Hence, the will not give those ideas any breathing space.
We know that democracies are fragile and must be defended. We learned that the hard way and that's a lesson I hope we'll never forget.
Re:Here's a link (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm European. WWII history was taught to me at school, just as it's taught to every schoolkid from Iceland to Russia. Delude yourself that Europeans don't learn about Hitler if you want, but don't try and dupe others into believing it too.
And, by the way, perhaps this is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black. Native Americans are so well respected and so well treated in the US today that the name of the NFL franchise in the nations capital is called the Washington Redskins. That's about as racially sensitive as having a team called the LA Niggers, yet nobody seems to give a shit outside the tiny minority of Native Americans still left.
Re:Here's a link (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's a link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here's a link (Score:4, Informative)
OMFG. I don't even live in North America and I can tell you that the Washington Redskins play in Washington DC (well, just outside it, if I remember correctly) and not Washington state. The only NFL franchise in Washington state is the Seattle Seahawks.
This is what I just love about Slashdot, and Slashdot ACs in particular: lots of people who don't know shit about a single thing but are willing to open their mouths and remove all doubt that they are indeed idiots.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:right... (Score:4, Informative)
Personally, I think they should just keep it off of their French site (which they already took it off, although they said it wasn't because of the French court), and the French shouldn't try to enforce it on their main, US, site.
It's more complicated than that (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the same thing at first, but this is a lot more complicated of an issue.
Suppose I go to france, upon up my breifcase on the streets of Paris and start hawking my neo-nazi wear. When they try to fine me, it would be absurd for me to evoke my first-admendment rights. They don't apply to the french government, and when I'm in france I'm under their jurisdiction.
That's not what Yahoo was doing, and it's going to be interesting to see how the courts take this one. Even if yahoo didn't have any servers in france, the mere fact that the content was accessible to french citizens prompted the french government to levy the fine.
The argument by the french is not that yahoo servers based in france were responsible.less They're saying that anyone who sells nazi memorobilia in such a way that french citzens are capable of buying it is legally liable and subject to a fine. If the french government succeeds in fining Yahoo, then there would be a legal basis to levy a fine against any online merchant who sells nazi memorbilia, regardless of his location if he doesn't block people attempting to access his website from france. The argument could be extened even further - if a brick and mortar store accepts orders placed by phone, and they don't make sure no one from france orders nazi stuff, a precent set by the courts' ruling in this case could hold that US-based brick and mortar store liable to fines by the french for violating french law.
At first I thought yahoo's case seemed stupid for the same reasons you mentioned. But if you think about the possible results if this case sets a precedent (and when don't they) it gets really scary.
Re:It's more complicated than that (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's more complicated than that (Score:4, Interesting)
- skylarov's company was using prices in dollars
- the credit card processing company used was located in the US
- the pages to sell those items were available in english, instead of russian only.
Those elements point toward some form of intent to reach a market beyond Russia.
In contrast, the yahoo auction site didn't have prices in francs nor euros, didn't use a french company to process payments and didn't offer a french version of those pages.
Re:Goodbye sovereignty (Score:3, Informative)
The 9th Circuit overturned a ruling saying that thhe US First Amendment made the French verdict invalid. That's not a proper ruling at all, you can't appeal French verdicts in the US courts.
However, if they want to collect on a French verdict here in the USA by using the help of the US legal system... that's when they've got to prove that they've French verdict doesn't contradict US public policy. No cha
Re:Goodbye sovereignty (Score:3, Insightful)
I've got five shiny mod points at the moment, but rather than mod you, I'll take the time to point out that you don't have a "provoking question", you have a "groundless opinion". There's a difference. Thanks for playing.
Seriously, the courts, Congress, and President surrender our national sovereignty like this? Are you fucking kidding me? I'm sure as hell not voting for Bush, but of all the bad things he's done, he hasn'
Re:Goodbye sovereignty (Score:3)
How many more times are we going to let the courts, Congress, the President, etc. surrender our national sovereignty like this? Don't we pay them to follow and enforce the law, not surrender it to foreign entities?
This event has nothing to do with our sovereignty, not yet have our rights been surrendered. Another country has expressed a dislike of one of our businesses items, that goes a
Re:Goodbye sovereignty (Score:3)
Hrm... the law...
Come back when Congress passes an anti-Nazi law. Otherwise, though we may not agree with it, it's a matter of French law.
Now, if France tried to collect its fines out of Yahoo!'s US assets, then there'd be a problem; they'd run into article V of the same document. But all the court said is that Yahoo! can't protect its French assets in a US court simply because of where th
Re:Anti-hate law (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess if neo-Nazis had as many pressure groups etc as the Jewish people then neo-Nazis
Subtleties are Important (Score:3, Informative)
I'll quote from the following article [counterpunch.org] by Uri Avnery [avnery-news.co.il]. The last sentence is the relevant statement.
Re:Anti-jewish hatred? (Score:3, Insightful)
According to the French government, by outlawing Nazi paraphenalia and memorabilia.
Re:Bravo (Score:3, Interesting)
there are frequent occurrences of anti-semitic vandalism in france. it's on the rise, so much so that israel's "move to israel" propaganda is having an effect in france.
Re:Bravo (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people think that's the result of the anti-nazi laws and jewish protection laws. The act of criminalizing nazi *ideas* makes them attractive to a whole slew of mentally unstable people, and youth who are drawn to forbidden things.
Just look at the US: we're let hate groups say whatever they wanted, and now the hate speech they spew out is banalized, and people look at them as the redneck morons they are. In France, the criminalization of hate speech and hate-related objects makes them dangerously attractive.
not just mentally unstable people (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, most reasonable people do not support Nazi ideas even where they're criminalized. But in general, criminalizing ideas makes them more attractive to those of us who side with unpopular sentiment against oppressive government.
Re:Bravo (Score:3, Insightful)
Hooray for a priori reasoning! Do you have any evidence at all that hate speech is on the decline in the US while on the rise in France? No? Did you just whip this out of thin air because it sounded right, though a critical obse
Re:Bravo (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a strong anti-Israel sentiment in France, but despite what pro-Israel groups would have you believe, that isn't quite the same as anti-semitism, because it is motivated by national politics rather than religious belief/ethnic identity. Many French disagree with Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and ignore PLO terrorist tactics; just as we in the US take the opposite view, condoning IDF atrocities while condemning outright PLO activities.
Neither view is wholly unbiased. France taking the PLO side is probably mostly due to domestic political lobbying by Muslims in France, just as our pro-Israel stance is mostly due to domestic political lobbying of Jews in the US.
Anyone who has looked at the situation over there in any sort of logical way will recognize that both groups are pretty shitty to each other and both seem to feel that God is on their side. Not a recipe for long lasting stability or peace.
At any rate, I am both Jewish and pro-Israel, American and of French descent (parents are French). When I go back to visit family I don't feel like I get any static from anyone about being Jewish, although I imagine (perhaps incorrectly) that some Arabs might have issues with it if they knew.
But I can say that as a liberal-minded individual it annoys me that some pro-Israel groups attempt to leverage the cultural fear we all have of being "anti-semetic" in order to increase support for Israel, a la "If you don't support Israel, you don't support Jews. Nazi!" This has worked suprisingly well on a lot of Americans especially.
I dislike it not because I don't want people to support Israel, but because I think people are beginning to realize that they're being manipulated, and equating "anti-Israel" with "anti-semetic" is very much degrading the notion of anti-semitism; if all you need to do to be anti-semetic is be anti-Israel, well, it doesn't take much, does it? And so suddenly we're lumping a lot politically-critical people who are otherwise not at all anti-semites in with the KKK. Kind of removes the utility of the term, imho.
Re:Bravo (Score:5, Insightful)
The average Parisian lost 20kg during the Nazi occupation [news.com.au]. I could dig for something about southern France, but you get the idea.
Aside from that, you seem to be supportive of France's attempt at purging "bad thoughts" from the minds of everyone on planet Earth
No, I'm not.
I'm, to the contrary, opposed to jingoist who act as though this was somehow a French thing. First of all, right there, you claim they are trying to "purge" the thoughts of, as you said, everyone on the planet. Whereas we are talking about a law that only applies to, surprise surprise, France.
Your justification of your hatred of all things French is what I oppose.
My feelings about that perticular law or that perticular case are not involved, this is about you jerks attacking a whole country, a whole people and culture, and acting as though you were justified, as if this were right.
American courts and lawmakers will come to Yahoo's rescue and put the pompous French beaurocrats right back on their socialist asses.
Yes, they are pompous.
Its as though, you know, they want a company doing is business in their own country to obey the law of the land, and the company was responding by having the court of another country try to impose its own laws to a sovereign nation.
Because, of course, since America is better than the rest of the planet, it's laws take precedence over all other laws. That is not pompous, oh my no!
Otherwise, we may well see the content of the internet reduced to the lowest common denominator of PC-filtered non-offensive non-confrontational child-safe mind-numbing drool.
Because, of course, laws affecting content on the internet [slashdot.org] are only passed in inferior countries, the Almighty, divine United States of America are above, amongst other things, passing such laws [fcc.gov].
So lets see, your opinion is that the French people did not suffer during WWII, that they are pompous, that they want to purge the thoughts of the entire world, and that they should submit to U.S. law.
My opinion is that you are a jingoist bigot.
Re:Bravo (Score:3, Funny)
You have no idea what you are talking right? France has actually a very right wing government.
Re:Bravo (Score:3, Informative)
UDP and UMP lost majority this year to the collectively left-wing Socialist Party, Communist Party, and the Greens and Radicals Party. Chirac's party, the UMP, formed in 2002 to unite the right-wing factions, couldn't get more than 1/6th of the vote in the March '04 elections; which had a ~65% voter turnout.
But you're right, I have no idea what I'm talking about.
Re:Bravo (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bravo (Score:4, Insightful)
In France, religion belongs to the private sphere of your life and is not a public matter. Church and State are separated, there is no "in god we trust" on our banknotes and a church wedding has no legal value (you need to go the mayor). This separation between church and state is fairly old and is a very important thing over there.
One of the consequences of these things is that religion (a private thing) is not to be broadcasted at school, which, being a state school in a secular country, doesn't want to have any link with religion.
Note that you still have the possibility to go to private schools (which are not necessarily expensive, since teachers in private schools are paid by the state as well) in which religion will play a part and will be taught.
Now, as to your comment,
the notion that religion has no place in school goes against the notion that you shouldn't be free to practice it. Religion is an integral part of who you are, it's not something you check at the door.
Well, this is precisely where the cultural difference appears: when the French public system was designed, this is precisely what people had in mind. France has a strong history of anti-clericalism. Religion, is something you're supposed to check at the door.
French Imperialist!1111!!!!111!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The
Re:Here's a chance for the Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of the French government's opinion of its subjects, the French are not children and should not be treated as such. France will survive quite well if a Parisian wants to read Mein Kempf.
We should not be forced to censor every piece of speech or expression that embarasses some other country. If that offends the thought police in France, Germany, China and other such countries, tough.
Re:France has never been big on freedom of the pre (Score:5, Funny)
I'm so glad CNN and Fox News aren't in the hands of those dirty commies, so we always get FAIR AND BALANCED reporting from the US press.
Re:France has never been big on freedom of the pre (Score:4, Funny)
That's what Slashdot is for.
Re:France has never been big on freedom of the pre (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually read the french press, you'll find out that it is way more critical of the french government than any US media outlet is of the US government.
Besides, your comment about communists controlling the unions is stupid, France has been under a right-wing government for a number of years now, not a government the communists would support. Moreover, the ELF scandal has been written about widely in the french press, at some point there wasn't a day without an article on TV or in the big newspapers(Le Monde, Liberation...)
You'd better go check again your sources about French media, it's light years ahead of US media when it comes to being free of pressure groups.
Re:France has never been big on freedom of the pre (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, here in California, a local radio show is the ONLY media outlet reporting on the many shennagins of the state government. Arnold calling them girly men was about 1/1000 of what the scumbags in the Scaramento statehouse deserve to be called. Evil, fascist, brainless, retarded, shit-filled, legal citizen-raping vermin begins to get in the same city as the ballpark, and this is coming from a avowed Independent. Honestly, if someone revealed tomorrow inarguable proof that the state legislature was comprised mainly of foriegn enemy agents whose goal was to destroy California economically, I wouldn't be the least bit suprised. It's either that or these people are the dumbest shits ever to walk upright.
You click on the local news, and it's a laundry list of robberies/murders, vague weather reports and snowboarding cats. When they can be bothered to cover a press conference by a state official, it's just reported verbatim. No one ever challenges anything. No reporter ever asks something like, "Do you really think a new 75 cent a gallon gas tax even approaces the outer reaches of coherent sanity at this point in time, and have you considered how much revenue it will actually bring in when the California economy basically evaporates overnight?"
And you can tell it's not bias. It's just laziness. Asking a followup question is just too much bother for them.
Re:France has never been big on freedom of the pre (Score:3, Informative)
And it didn't stop either all the scandals that led to that. In fact, especially for the Elf bribery, at least one past influent member of the government got judged.
What is Freedom? (Score:4, Insightful)
For every "freedom" we grant ourselves we must give up a freedom in cost. If we grant ourselves the ability to say anything, then anyone can say anything without merit. A common critique of "free speech" is that it leads to relativism, where there are so many people who say so many things (often contradictory and intentionally misleading) that it becomes practically impossible for any person to figure out what is true or not. In the end, people just accept practically everything they hear if it supports their opinion and rant if it doesn't. Not every country, in fact most don't, want the outcome we have in the U.S. and do not have an interest in letting anyone say just anything.
Personal opinion: You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. Allow free speech and it only takes a small number of people who are willing to twist things so far out of context that it becomes impossible to have an informed opinion (Bush v Kerry comes to mind). Disallow free speech and people will eventually come to a norm and threaten those who cross it regardless if it has merit or not (France on Nazism). As an American, I would like to say that freedom to speak is blessed thing, but with free speech being used to attempt to defend any action from responsibility these days, I'm not terribly sure we can tout this horn much longer.
Re:What is Freedom? (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is that you can say anything in the US so long as (1) you're not calling other people to do illegal things (read shouting "let's go kill some jews!" in public) and (2) it doesn't contravene the law (like you say, lying in court). Also, those rules are the same for everybody.
In France, saying "I think Jews own the press" can land you in court. That's wrong. Also, saying "I think Catholics own the press" won't. That too is wrong, because the rule is biased towards one group of people, usually a minority.
France admits that. They say jews have suffered during the war and deserve to be especially protected. They since have extended their "special protection" to people of north african descent, and pretty much most ethnic minorities. The problem is, it's counterproductive because people who are not in one of the specially protected minority resent that, and also people are attracted to forbidden things. Which explains all the antisemitic acts going on in France right now.
Re:US-centric thinking, as always (Score:4, Insightful)
But it's perhaps not as liberally applied as it is in the US. As has been pointed out around here ad nauseam, most fundamental legal documents in Western countries say something to the effect of "the people have freedom of speech," essentially leaving it open to interpretation as to just how much freedom they are granted (by their government, presumably). The national charter in the US says "thou shalt not" to the national government with reguards to speech laws and another amendment forces all member states to follow suit.
"Not only that, you will be surprised that there are far fewer people making use of their free speech to put forward outlandish theories."
Apparently because it is illegal to do so. However, this begs the question of just who it is that decides what is outlandish and what is not, and what standards are used.
And is it that fewer people believe these theories, or simply because fewer people feel safe to admit they believe them?
"Name another industrialised nation where creationism is even being discussed as a topic for public school curricula..."
Somebody else's state, somebody else's problem. That's one of the nice things about federalism.
"Anyways, there's always limits to free speech, even in the home country of the first amendment (think slander, think inaccurate advertising (like Jay's vs. Lay's in Chicago a few weeks ago))."
How does freedom of speech equate to freedom from responsibility? Essentially, all the amendment says is that the government can't keep you from putting your foot in your mouth. And even then, in the case of slander, most (if not all) state constitutions guarantee that the truth can never be considered slander.
"What's more, the European press didn't censor itself in the runup to the Iraq war."
What are you looking for, free speech or forced speech? If you want the latter, please refer to the amendment three below this one.
"What good is free speech if it's unpatriotic to criticize the president's warmongering?"
The fact that it's not government-mandated.
Re:What I don't understand is.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What I don't understand is.... (Score:5, Informative)
I can also read. Here's what William Manchester says about it in The Glory and The Dream:
"Paris disturbed some Americans. It didn't look at all like an enslaved capital. Compared to London, it was prospering. Ed Murrow was surprised at the number of well-dressed women on the streets. Not only had the French textile industry flourished throughout the war; the French had developed the first practical television transmitters and sets. All the famous couturiers were in business-Molyneux, Lanvin, Schiaparelli-and their French customers were wearing full skirts and mutton-legged sleeves, which had long been out of the question for American and Britich women limited by clothes rationing.
So you see, all you have to do is read a little history instead of spouting righteous indignation.
That's what I like about slashdot. Get a little edgy in the wrong way and you're a troll or immature or whatnot.
And screw your comment about my attitude starting wars. I'm the one that's quoting history, asshole.
Re:Precedent (Score:5, Insightful)