French Court To Yahoo!: Dump Nazi-Related Auctions

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.

Several points to clarify

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...

Re:I'll tell you...

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.

What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gander

Seems like the US isn't the only country way over-extending its powers. Remember what we did to old Jon Johansen?

Stupid legal action like this needs to stop.

Generalise the problem

Let's look at the precise issues we're dealing with here, stripped of the specifics of the case:

• 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 are

• Ignore request. Waddya gonna do, block us? Force every ISP in France to use [shudder] Cybersitter?
• Say the architecture of the web makes this impossible: it's difficult to build walls, but easy to move around them.
• Build walls which X knows are useless, and say "there you go, we tried."

How about alternative, equivalent scenarios?

• X=CIA, A=USA, B=Iran
• X=pornsite, A=USA, B=Australia (My stoopid Australian government has ordered ISPs to use filtering software to block all X-rated material)
• X=scientology, A=France, B=USA

Declare inTERdependance

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.

Re:Don't Jump to Conclusions

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.

Re:Don't Jump to Conclusions

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.

Re:Santity of Law

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.

Re:This hasn't actually happened yet

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.

Swastika is not really a hate symbol

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.]"

what we need in order to fix this...

...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,

Re:What's wrong with Nazi memorabilia?

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!

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.

In the famous words of . .

. . a Japaneese engineer I work with:

"Technically anything is possible, but Politicaly? NO!"
___

Only reasonable solution...

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.

Re:This hasn't actually happened yet

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."

any sufficiently effective propaganda...

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?

--

Re:Speech as Action

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!

Re:What's Good for the Goose is Good for the Gande

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.

Dave

Re:What's wrong with Nazi memorabilia?

But that doesn't mean it isn't trash.

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?

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" - [e-mail] - arcade@efnet

Declare independance

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.

Geeks of the world unite!

Santity of Law

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.

- Serge Wroclawski

Re:Speech as Action

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.

Re:Several points to clarify

- 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?

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.

Justin

Other Auction Sites

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. "

(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

Yahoo should just do a name lookup of all the incoming connections and if the name ends in .fr
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

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.

--