French Judge Demands Yahoo Censor Auctions 508
davejhiggins writes: "In this ruling a French judge has upheld an earlier ruling ordering Yahoo! to ban French users from buying Nazi memorabilia from its auction site. Even though the content is not accessible from www.yahoo.fr/ the ruling insists that even "the visualization in France of these objects" on the www.yahoo.com auction site constitutes a breach of French law and orders Yahoo to bar all French IPs from accessing it despite Yahoo's assertions that this would not guarantee that nobody in France would be able to see it." This kind of stuff annoys the hell out of me.
Tribes vs Empires (Score:2)
Let the Basque, Brittany's and other groups have sovereign control over their own peoples and control their own boarders and I can have sympathy for the descendants of the Frankish tribes who wish to maintain their language and their unique cultural ideas.
In the absence of such tolerance of devolution, separatist and secessionist movements, I have no tolerance for those who hypocritically denounce "nationalist socialism" and then enact social engineering policies with force of national law.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
There are two points of view here.. The US FCC, among other things, considers broad-cast air-waves to be hazzardous to minors and otherwise sensative individuals, so they regulate it... Likewise with Broad-cast TV. Other pseudo public media such as Theaters are now getting similar forms of enforcement through the MPAA. The internet is just another broadcast media that many believe should also be restricted.. Or at least provide road-blocks that physically prevent sensative viewers from reaching them... The only way this could truely work is if all web sites were legally bound to post ratings with their web site... Or that all web servers apply a ratings filters on all outgoing HTTP packets.. Violators could be prosecuted... Thus home viewers could simply set their browsers to a max rating and the world is safe once again.
This is unlikely since, only ascii text could be easily filtered / rated. Images would have to be on a voluntary basis. Course, I think web sites are taking the right step in placing initial "over 18 only" pages. I'm sure they'd be willing to rate their entire web sites as X or what-ever to further avoid litigation. It would be a simple extension to the HTTP protocol to add a rating header field. At this point, you could argue a finer grain of rating, which, among other things would rate propoganda such as Nazi's as at a minimum R, or even to be flagged. Course flagging would get into a hairy situation (since you could have an infinite number of them).. And politicians and courts would be independantly mandating their use to the point that the over-head is insane.
This whole point of view is based on the idea that responsibility lies with the broad-caster.
The other point of view is that responsibility lies with the recipient.. This point of view works more like Gun laws.. Do you hold a gun manufacturer or salesman responsible if a parent doesn't lock their gun properly such that a child can't get to it? If your country outlaws public owning of guns, then you can block imports (for the most part).. I personally believe the internet can be viewed more like a gun than a broad-cast PA system. You can filter or modify the data at every node with the internet, much like you have "customs" at every shipping point.
-Michael
Re:my twisted imagination (Score:2)
> disagrees with this law as misofrancic [...]
I don't. I wanted to bash the "Oh, thanks God we have our holy Consitution and 1st amendment, it could never happen here" morons, and also the usual "the French are a bunch of faggots that got their ass kicked and we bailed them out and now they're bitter and they're fascist and they're language biggots and they're lazy, and they have a reduced workweek because they are socialists dumbasses, and there's no freedom in France blablabla" stuff. Which, if you read the commentaries in this story, are omnipresent. I'm just tired of this ranting, of hearing the same old cliches again and again because a (maybe tiny, but vocal) portion of the Anglo-Saxon people really has a problem with us. Trust me, if you were French, after 1 month on \., you would understand.
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Hello? This is the country where you could succeed in a libel action based on the publication of a photograph, merely because a strap hanging from a saddle in the background could be seen hanging between plaintiff's legs Burton v Crowell Publishing. You might be correct that in regard to public figures the bar has been substantially raised by NYT v Sullivan.
The devil is in the detail too, when you consider the court based exceptions to the first amendment (Go back and look at the 'clear and present danger' cases Schenck v. US, Abrams v. US etc), the rather partisan (poltical) nature of free speech becomes apparent. Back then it was anarchists in the US, now its neo-nazis in France ....
Re:How can they regulate? (Score:2)
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
Re:Woah! Wait a min! (Score:2)
In my post, I was NOT criticizing (or even remarking on) the french law. What I found ridiculous (and continue to find ridiculous) is the idea that the judge seems to think that the rest of the world should moderate it's content (which is not even hosted in france) to suit this particular french law. I consider it the equivalent of sending nasty letters to newspapers in foreign countries, because someone in france subscribes to them and might be offended by their content.
I have no problem or complaint with countries making laws as they see fit, and enforcing them. But if you want to see things that adhere to all laws within your country, then perhaps you shouldn't be using the world wide web, which contains content from quite a few people who are outside your jurisdiction. As I stated above, you are obviously free to make any laws you see a need for. But, being in a seperate country, we are also entitled to make judgements reguarding which laws we think need passing. And at the moment at least, yahoo, (A U.S. based company) is perfectly within the laws of the country it belongs to.
So, as I see it, france has three realistic options:
Ok, maybe only one and a half of those are realistic.
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (Long ass post) (Score:2)
No. Should they also ban pictures of women with exposed faces because Iran wants them to? Censorship is never acceptable. Period.
Fake IPs (Score:2)
Say you have a program, like Windows Update, that were to update based on your geographical location by IP (as is sanctioned, for example, in international encryption issues). All a person is doing when they change their IP is fucking up the system.
Personally, I say let them shut out French IPs. Hell, shut the French out of the whole goddamn web. Maybe then, they won't see the "Nazi" images they are touting.
In Cambridge, it's illegal to smoke in Boston (Score:2)
Fine, but they're telling an American company, in the US, what traffic they should accept. The Judge should be barking orders at French ISPs, not Yahoo!.
Re:I can understand (Score:5)
and is limited by our government. (Slander? Libel? Shouting fire in a crowded theater?)
This isn't just "Freedom of Shopping." The judge has said that even allowing people in France to view these items is forbidden. Under that ruling, it's perfectly ok for a totalitarian regime to bar access of its citizens to basic political information, foreign newspapers, etc. This gives legitimacy to suppression of fundamental freedoms and I think sets a dangerous precedent.
Nazi memorabilia != Nazism (Score:2)
No, I cannot respect censorship, in whatever form it is disguised. Real freedom means everyone should be free to do anything, even things I may not personnally approve, as long as they are not criminal actions per se.
Re:The Judge has it backwards... (Score:2)
This may be true but I don't recall getting any support last week, when I said it was wrong of the US to try to force their trade embargo of Cuba on the rest of the world.
Re:Nice "analogy" (Score:2)
You obviously know nothing about the revolution, nor about the European coalitions that immediately started fighting it (oh, I know, it's always much more comfortable to make the French responsible of anything that goes wrong).
As far as the change of republic goes, you're also ignorant. The constitution was changed peacefully, because it was time for important reforms. On the contrary, America, just like Italy or the UK, whose systems actually also need radical changes as the one that were necessary with the 4th republic, have always been blatantly impotent to change archaic and cumbersome institutions. The American experts in American policy know how this system has become inefficient in the way it distributes power, but nothing can be done. As long as business goes on... Even the electoral system sucks, and nothing happens until an election turns into an hilarious turkey (happy Thanksgiving!).
Last, the constitution in France does not have the same role as in the US. It specifies the way institutions work, not the values, which are specified by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which hasn't changed still 1789. It's OK to replace the constituion when the institutions have become unadapted. Under this approach, the American constitution would have been changed at least 3 times since the birth of the US. The only reason why it didn't is that is is considered untouchable, just (and after tremendous efforts) "amendable". The irrational ones are not the ones you think.
Re:Nice "analogy" (Score:2)
To each his own, here's the guilty: (Score:2)
If there's any stupidity in this court decision, you owe it to the fucking retards at UEJF.ORG [uejf.org], admire their fucking retarded home page with that ridiculous photo, it's entertaining. UEJF means French Jewish Students Union. They're a bunch of crybabies who want people to believe that THEY were in the concentration camps. Nevermind they're 20 year old and still covered with acnee. Anyway, voice your contempt on their online forum [uejf.org] that they never read anyway.
The decision is not final, Yahoo is going to appeal, and AFAIK their legal argument was along the lines of "we can't do it" or "we're not responsible for it" (IE it's Yahoo, France that was sued when it's Yahoo, CA. that did it). For the appeal, I guess they will switch legal strategies; basically, the "law" invoked does'nt stand very well as it's only a government decret, whereas, per the constitution it should be a full fledged law as it restricts freedom of speech.
As for our friends at UEJF, let it be known that this bunch of losers are famous for suing like mad monkeys. They have sued the antiracist activist Costes [costes.org] when the incriminated work was, obviously and irrefutably so, sarcastic, a parody, etc ... (it said "give white women to arabs" or something).
A big bunch of whiney, arrogant losers. Let them know what you think. Call them at +33 1 47 34 62 00. Fill their forum with junk. They deserve all the shit they get.
--
Translation of parent post (Score:3)
Snide comments aside, how is collecting Nazi memorabilia any worse than collecting the memorabilia of any other historical era? If I collect memorabilia of the Napoleonic era does that make me a history buff or a fan of a man responsible for the deaths of millions in the Napoleonic wars? What makes the relics of the Nazi era somehow "worse" to collect? Are they lacking historical value? Do you need to be an accredited curator or historian?
Or is it that a few pinheads (most of which couldn't afford any Nazi artifacts of any real value) like to beat up minorities while wearing swastikas?
I'm all for banning hate speech, in the interest of the constitutional rights of minorities and sensibly minded denizens.
In other words, you're all for giving up your right to free speech. Do us all a favor, move to France where you can check your civil rights at the border. Don't forget to tell all your friends in Greenpeace how well you think the French Government defends the rights of minorities and their political perspectives.
Re:Annoys the hell? (Score:2)
I support France's right to control every aspect of French culture and the behavior of French citizenry. The direct issue, beyond mere censorship, is forcing a company that was not formed under French laws to comply to French laws.
Yahoo.fr complies to French laws. Yahoo.com doesn't. If every website has to conform to every local law, then everything will be regulated by the strictest standards. If we follow this logic all the way through, no website will be able to support Taiwan as a seperate country from China because Chinese law forbids it.
Unfortunately, censorship cannot occur on a case-by-case basis. To go through and say this is bad and this is good opens up issues of content control, 'this defames the government, it gets censored, this promotes the government, it doesn't' And who draws the line? Who gets to decide?
France and its citizens can pass any kind of law they want. Yahoo is not a French company and accesses French citizens only through the CHOICE of the citizens. Nobody forces the French to visit Yahoo.com over Yahoo.fr.
This just in... (Score:2)
I give up (Score:2)
Major Censorship! (Score:2)
First of all, banning French Ips doesn't mean no one in France can access it. They could proxy around if they really wanted to, and I'm sure there are Ips which aren't directly French, which would allow people to get in. Secondly, what if for some reason a French type person WANTS to actually look at and purhaps buy this type of item? What in the world is this coming to? If they are allowed to do this, then perhaps they are also allowed to make CNN block it's democratic pages to people who are in republican states, or vis versa! That's like slashdot blocking it's site from AOL users.
OH no! (Score:3)
Let's make a list:
Pros:
French Kissing
French Fries
French Toast
CONS:
French Vanilla
Silly-looking hats
Recipes that use a lot of yougut and small,dead, stinking fish
French judges
Well... (Score:3)
I'm not saying that I agree with them, but it isn't as irrationial as everybody tries to say it is.
Re:France / USA (Score:2)
//rdj
I know (Score:2)
I'm also a person who understands the power in a succinct statement. People don't have a right not to have their 'feelings hurt' in the real world. They do have a right to say just about whatever they want. And for a very good reason, you might want to read Fahrenheit 451 some day. Once we start arbitrarily deciding what is people are allowed to say based on the political content, anything is possible. And I hope you're not going to say that the a government would be capable of making sure the power was only used for 'good'.
If we stopped racist literature now, why couldn't we also block Communist tracts? Or perhaps harbingers of the religion of Islam?
When you teach evolution in schools, are you violating the rights of fundamentalist christens? Are you hurting their feelings?
When you teach the history of world war II, are you violating the rights of holocaust deniers? Are you hurting their feelings?
You may not be an actually be an idiot, but, provided you actually believe what you're saying, you certainly lack some pretty basic critical thinking skills (like generalization, for instance).
Oh, and congratulations on using Dictonary.com's word of the day for august 2nd 1999 [dictionary.com]. Although I don't think you actually knew what it meant...
Re:Major Censorship! (Score:2)
Thanks to the tireless efforts of those rare individuals [alexchiu.com] who challenge the impossible, we now know that we can do it. Alex Chiu [alexchiu.com] knows this, and Alex Chiu [alexchiu.com] is a shining example of the American capitalist motto, YOU CAN DO IT!©
Just because you elitist, long haired socialist hippie open-source freaks think nothing can be accomplished unless it is free doesn't mean you can poop [goatse.cx] on the efforts of those gifted imagineers that dare to dream the impossible. I don't know what they teach you in those dens of homosexual debauchery known as British boarding schools, but here in the free world, A.K.A. US to the motherfuckin' A, they teach us three things:
- You have the right to own a gun
- You have the right to shoot anyone who says otherwise
- The only good software is software YOU PAY FOR
- YOU CAN DO IT!©
If you got a problem with our policy, you can take it up with my supervisor [alexchiu.com]. That's why I voted for Bush, because he's the only candidate for president with the balls to stand up to you jackbooted liberal thugs on behalf of Microsoft and the RIGHT TO INNOVATE, and now Albert "Hitler" Gore and his buddy Joseph "Goebbels" Lieberman are trying to steal the election, and make this a country where Microsoft gets sued for creating a clearly [windows98.com] superior [windows2000.com] product [internetexplorer.com] , and communists everywhere are free to create [gnome.org] shoddy [kde.org] knockoffs [mozilla.org]. Shame on you. But wait,--
Re:It is not a question about the evil of the item (Score:2)
Some people are just history buffs, antique collectors, coin collectors, etc.
Get a grip, owning a Nazi's dinerware does not make you a Nazi, nor does it make you evil!
Trying to censor the internet, OTOH, is both evil and moronic.
Re:Anonymizer (Score:2)
Have we achieved One-World-ness yet? (Score:2)
Long ago, I mused on how everyone wanted to eliminate their own piece of the Internet (albeit not on here):
"Americans want to outlaw pornography, Germans want to outlaw racism, the French want to outlaw any advertising that isn't written in French..."
Back then, I had no idea it could get this bad -- I miss my naivete. I really hope this doesn't become precedent. Imagine a world where the communications medium is governed by a combination of the most restrictive codes of law instead of the least restrictive. (China, anyone?)
And then imagine those restrictions slowly leaking off of the communications media into other facets of life.
Some people say the Internet will bring the world together. Assuming the world doesn't tear the Internet apart first, I'm not sure the world is ready to become a single entity yet. At least not until they get their ground rules straight.
And no, this is not just a knock at France. (So 50 years ago you got burned in a war. We appreciate your sacrifices and all you went through. But get over it! It was half a century ago! Get some therapy or something! I mean, look what we're going through in politics now! We plan to survive that...)
If it's a barb at anybody, it's at those countries and companies that think they can use the Internet (or any other media) to either:
a) publish one more form of useless, insincere propaganda -- a single-page of prechewed and committee-approved irrefutable bullshit where everyone else is trying to post vividly interactive and frequently updated encyclopedias, or
b) surf the world and try to put the kibosh on any information they don't like -- browsing everyone else's vividly interactive and frequently updated encyclopedias and trying to black-pen them by judicial order, advertiser protest, or out-and-out cracking.
No, this isn't aimed specifically at France. But if France wants to be that way about it, then welcome to the party, we feel your pain, now take a seat on the front porch and wait until we've had our fun in here.
(Feeling vinegary today, what can I say?)
---
Re:Can we say terrorism? (Score:2)
"some french dude" as you would put it is not causing the problem. Yahoo! is disrespecting a law that french citizens wanted put in place so some extent. otherwise, it wouldn't have become a law.
while we might cherish the right to say or do most anything, others can not be judged by our standards, but we must respect others and the laws they enact for themselves.
Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!) (Score:5)
For us, nazism means deads in our families, collective humiliations, foreign tanks parading in Paris, hunger, poverty, entire villages slaughtered (women and children included), genocide, shame on some of our citizens who became collaborators, etc... So, yeah, we're irrational about nazi icons, Jewish associations are very agressive to keep it that way, and in the end we're probably wrong. But I'd rather leave in a country which is irrational about nazism than in a country which is absurdly puritan about sex, alcohol and related, sorry.
Re:How can they regulate? (Score:2)
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!) (Score:2)
Isn't it fascinating how a mainstream (even if not rated for kids) movie may show breasts or frontal pictures of naked women (Think "The devils advocate" or "Eyes wide shut") while only a hardcore porn movie will display a dick?
Well what do I know, I'm just a silly swede. Here the comedy "Tillsammans" that featured (non-erect) penises as well as their feminine counterparts, got a "eleven years old, or seven with adult company"-rating. Wonder what that rating would be in the US?
They weigh values differently in this case... (Score:2)
Where can I get a list of French IP addresses? (Score:2)
Support (Score:2)
For that matter I think it's wrong for America to have a trade embargo against Cuba, but that's another issue.
It's wrong for America to force it's trade embargoes, drug wars, morality etc. on other nations.
It's wrong for America to invade another country, kidnap it's legal head of state and forcably remove him to the US to face trial for American crimes * especially* when those "crimes" weren't even "commited" on American soil.
When this happened the American people rejoiced, rather than hanging their heads in shame.
The grand Republican experiment ended long before the current election fiasco.
Every year the Congress reads to the full session Washington's farewell address, they all feel a swelling in their hearts as it is read, and five minutes later procede to kick it to death.
Knowledge of forbidden symbols (Score:2)
I can imagine the makings of a short sci-fi story. In the future someone realizes that nobody living remembers, and no records exist of what a certian forbidden symbol looks like. So how can we enforce the law, as we don't know the forbidden symbol when we see it?
Well heck, after embracing this kind of thinking, we could extend it. Let's just make illegal saying certian bad things about the government. We won't say exactly what bad things, because we wouldn't want to say them ourselves. Or like a parent or child -- you can't say bad words, but I can't say the bad words myself in order to tell you what they are.
Re:On the one hand you are correct. (Score:2)
Thank you for this intelligent and thoughtful post.
Someone please mod this up.
This is dangerous (Score:2)
Re:Annoys the hell? (Score:2)
Do you honestly think that whether or not Nazi memorabilia is for sale on Yahoo will affect in any way the number of Nazi sympathizers and imitators in Europe or anywhere else? Do you think that a budding neo-Nazi recruit in France is going to change his beliefs solely on the fact that he cannot order an authentic artifact or two?
Yes, the Nazis were responsible for many atrocities in the past. But PRETENDING THINGS DON'T EXIST DOESN'T MAKE THEM GO AWAY. In fact, all too often it increases the mystique as perceived by the minds of those who are already easily lead into such things.
Re:When you gotta blame someone else... (Score:2)
than to encourage them to hide in back rooms in self-righetous indignation...)
However, it certainly should be up to French sites to block such auctions. It was correct of them to remove the items from www.yahoo.fr in order to meet local standards and continue business in France, but Yahoo! should not be obligated to pay to protect the French from access to their US site. However...
Jurisdiction issues ecome blurry on the Internet. Unless Yahoo! blocks all French sites from www.yahoo.com, then it really is NOT just a US site... So maybe they SHOULD block the French sites, and it gets more complicated if you figure in that French people could get access through non-French sites... You begin to see why governments fear the Internet as a potential threat to their soverignty...
What would be prudent of Yahoo!, though, would be to put a tag in those auctions that the French sites could read and block. At least, then, they can be seen as cooperative and giving the French the opportunity to enforce their national laws.
And as for the French government, they should subsidize the standardization of an XML DTD that allows sites to be marked with
However, expect issues like this to increase as governments figure out how to enforce their national laws overlaid with a truly international communications medium...
Re:U.S. election is NOT a scandal? Ur? (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!) (Score:2)
I've actually been living here for one year now (I'm in Manhattan, and I like it, but I've decided to come back in one year). I didn't want to mention it before because I'm not very proud of my English after all this time.
Now, aren't you forgetting Tipper Gore's PMRC, Judas Priest' trial, or MacCarthysm? Where was the first amendment by this time? Also, what is even much more important in the US is social pressure: there may be few regulations, but there is much more brainwashing which makes these regulations mostly unnecessary. What is all this PC stuff about? Don't you feel around you how puritanism is preventing you to do or say this or that? Don't you feel how reluctant people are to accept cynism? Have you ever worked in a latin European country (by "latin", I mean Spanish, Italian or French) and had a chance to compare the nature of relations between employees?
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!) (Score:2)
Re:Well... (Score:2)
Seriously. As a yongster, I was appauled that the KKK could hold a march in DC. But as I've gotten older, I understand better.. It is not right to supress opinions (so long as those opinions do not migrate into harmful actions). Those that adore the Nazi regieme are entitled to their opinions. It is this very sort of "Treaty of Vers..(sp??)" punishment and attempts at covering up ugly parts of the world or history that has exemplified trouble.
This is obviously a trivial (albeit sensationalized) case of sensorship (who's to say that Nazi imagry is less offensive or more dangerous than child-porn.. Personally, I don't understand the puritanism of anti-pornography to begin with.. It's just sex.. But that's just my opinion).
Lastly, if France really wants national sensorship then have THEM put firewalls/Filters at their borders! Sensor at the client, not at the server.
-Michael
Re:Bash the French (Score:2)
French nationalism is dangerous. Language laws and culture laws abound, but in the end, they do support a liberal democracy and it is their misguided concept of prohibiting nazi symbology from reaching the masses that leads them to these mistakes. Hatred isn't a symbol, it is a cultural value. Destroy the symbol, the hatred remains. To destroy hatred, you must wither the root. The Nazi paraphenalia being auctioned is but a side-effect of the hatred.
A call for reason (Score:2)
Re:Blocking IP's not technically difficult. (Score:2)
It would be interesting if the US had taken the French perspective and demanded that all foreign countries block any American site that attempted to export US Crypto software.
The bigger question: (Score:2)
This is not about France telling Yahoo what to do! This is about every country that has different laws and different standards on the books. Some places it's legal to buy drugs, in other countries you might get the death sentence; which country's laws prevail when the world is your market place?
How do you keep everything in perpective?
This has been hashed out a few times here and in other places; Does anyone have a link to what was said then?
Re:Fuc*#ing A&%holes! (Score:2)
THERE should be THEIR
there refers to location.
their refers to possession.
Re:Nice "analogy" (Score:2)
Now, seriously, what was this enumeration for? To show that you've opened a book? To avoid making a similar enumeration on the US? May I suggest that you study the political rhetorics in America, as compared to European (French included) counterparts? Did you notice at what insane level of populism the Presidential campaign was? And the children this and and that, and let me bestially kiss my wife while cameras are watching, and I trust the people while he's for big government, and I want to restore dignity, and I'm gonna fight for you, and , blablabla... Also, what about the incredibly stupid things that you can hear from Congressmen on C-Span when the cameras are here?
No wonder there is no strong far right party (actually, there is, it's about one half of the Republican party...), as there was in France with the National Front. In the US, pure populism is the mainstream.
You have anger issues (Score:2)
Re:Nazi memorabilia != Nazism (Score:2)
Impossible n'est pas français... (Score:2)
So, just let them figure out HOW to do it, both legally AND technically... Why should Yahoo bother? French law doesn't extend past the borders of France anymore than american laws don't extend past the USA's borders...
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
France / USA (Score:2)
What he's banning is something he considers offensive. Is that right? Not in my opinion. But as a German I honestly think that Nazi memorabilia is more offensive then naked humans.
I still wouldn't want to have it banned, but I can sympathize.
ridup...ridup...ridup (Score:2)
French v. Freedom (Score:3)
A good friend of mine owns a Nazi dagger. He is certainly no Nazi. He also owns a British commando knife and several other pieces of WWII equipment. He is a history buff and nothing more.
From a technical standpoint. It may be possible to block sites coming directly from French domains, but it is impossible to block anyone who truely wishes to get through. I can think of several ways off the top of my head (e.g. use an anonymous browser site).
This is why the frech got rolled over in WW I & II (Score:2)
To be fair, I'm pretty sure that most people in my country are complete idiots too. maybe it's just something with the human race in general.
But at least we kicked some Nazi ass instead of taking it in the rear and then trying to ban free speech later in hope people would forget the Nazis existed or something.
and in case you are wondering, yes this rant was brought to you by monday.
umm, they are still bitter? (Score:2)
The Internet is a place of free-trade and free-expression of ideas, not a battle ground over land expansion 50 - 75 years ago...
Revisionst History (Score:3)
they're still amateurs compared to the austrailian parliment though
I'm told in some parts of the world it is illegal to even mention the hollocust ... does anyone know if this is true?
You loose! (Score:2)
Re:Can we say terrorism? (Score:2)
Clarity (Score:2)
Which stuff annoys the hell out of you? The nazi stuff or the censorship stuff?
I can understand (Score:3)
Canada, for example, has very strict laws about child pornography (which are being debated right now in our Supreme Court). How do we then handle the issue of child pornography coming into the country from other countries where it is not illegal? This is perhaps a more interesting version of the question this legal argument is trying to propose
Re:Translation of parent post (Score:2)
Thanks for the post.
They are referring to the sinking of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior by French intelligence. I think it occurred while the Rainbow Warrior was docked at a New Zealand port. A photographer was killed in the explosion.
In the end, the event actually worked to Greenpeace's favour as they received international attention and empathy. The Rainbow Warrior was replaced almost immediately through donations and the French were left with egg on their face.
New Zealand, as you can imagine, was not amused.
How can they regulate? (Score:4)
~moofbong
Re:Translation of parent post (Score:2)
The French government blew it up in Auckland harbor in 1985 to prevent the Greenpeacies from getting in the way of French nuclear tests at Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific.
...if I were in charge of Yahoo.com... (Score:2)
--
Re:French Judge in Nazi Uniform Action Figure (Score:2)
Can I post the picture of your mom having sex with hitler that I made in photoshop, or is regulation only of things that offend *other* people ridiculous socialism?
Go for it. I'd consider that to be freedom of expression. Have a party.
At the same time, however, recognize that I'll post that picture I have of you banging a sheep.
Socialism is evil, like communism, it doesn't work. France is a socialist country. And *I* live in a socialist country.
If you want to be taxed all to hell to pay for silly protectionist policies and the stupidity of the proles, that's fine with me: just leave me the hell out of it.
I prefer a capitalism, which rewards those who work hard, and punishes laziness.
Simple Solution (Score:3)
Before French citizens can access anything on the internet, they must first be licensed by their government and then the site they are going to visit must also approve of a French visitor coming to see the site's content.
I truly understand the very logical reasoning behind France's objection to auctioning off Hate paraphenalia, but I feel a bit more secure knowing it is occuring in the open where this behavior can be noted and used as an example than hidden. Because you know that moment it is outlawed at least three sites will pop up (members.tripod.com/naziauction) to fill the demand. What's worse is these sites will operate without the watchful eye of ADL or other HateWatch groups.
Welcome to the global economy France. You either play along or become extinct.
What?? (Score:2)
--
Re:Well... (Score:2)
And also, I bet that if the US had been conquered by the Nazis in WWII, we'd all be required to buy Nazi propaganda.
The only way to do this... (Score:3)
y'know, now that I think of that, this might not be a bad idea at all. Imagine the headlines:
I swear, this is ripe for something on the Onion, if anything was..
"Never apply a Star Trek solution to a Babylon 5 problem"
(as seen on a bulletin board in Fermi lab)
Re:Frenchie (Score:2)
As far as the Vichy government is concerned, it was nothing but a puppet government, chosen by the nazis who were omnipotent in France after their victory, and serving the nazi's interests.
PS: May I suggest you to read "Trading with the Enemy", by Charles Higham? It has some interesting information on the (excellent) relations between Nazi Germany and American business. It seems that, in every country, people are tempted to collaborate with the (even temporary) winner, whoever he is...
Re:How can they regulate? (Score:2)
Sorry but it won't work. (Score:5)
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!) (Score:2)
Last, your 1st amendment protects NOTHING. I should have mentioned that I'm spending a lot of time in the US (I have professional collaborations here), and I really don't see it a land of freedom of speech, far from it.
The End of the Internet. Details at 6. (Score:2)
There was a time when there were *no* rules: anyone did *anything* they wanted. Naturally, there were consequences for doing stupid things, but there wasn't any legal involvement: the system took care of its own.
These days, it's not that way at all.
So what's going to happen?
Is the Internet going to become controlled and regulated by the Legal System?
Is it going to become controlled and regulated by Big Business?
Is there any difference between the two?
Will a secretive undernet develop, once again allowing no-holds-barred information exchange?
Will we savvy geeks rise up against the burgeoning restrictions, or will be lie back and take it up our collective brown buttons?
Frankly, I think the worst will happen: this remarkable opportunity for freedom of information sharing will be subverted to the needs of business. Most of the public doesn't know what it's losing, and the rest of the public is dominated by selfish short-term interests that simply aren't compatible with long-term societal gains.
It's the End of the Internet as we know it... and it's going out not with a bang, but a whimper.
:-(
--
This is what we call stupid (Score:2)
France should simply require their providers there to filter out connections to ebay. Why is it ebay's problem if France has some silly laws allowing censorship? Are they a French company? :P
Re:You can't stop me! (Score:2)
Not necessary. You can use a non-French proxy if you have accesss to one, or you could even get an account at Anonymizer [anonymizer.com] for $15 per quarter. (Anonymizer even lets you surf for free if you feel like putting up with the delay). This ruling isn't going to prevent anyone who seriously wants access to this material from seeing it. What's most perturbing is that a judge felt he had the ability/authority/right to do so.
Re:I can understand (Score:2)
Then you are a complete idiot.
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!) (Score:2)
Last but not least, the ruling adresses yahoo.fr, not yahoo.com, and yahoo.fr is under the French legislation.
I'm not so sure (Score:2)
The other question is if Yahoo knows what they are sending at all. They should have their auctions catagorized and therfore know.
The best they can be expected to do is to not knowingly transmit this memorabilia to France. To not even try would be rude. To err, would only be common carrier.
If the French have a problem with their laws, they should change them or leave. This kind of suppression only glamorizes that crap and makes it seem more valuable, but that's not my bussiness. Now if someone wants to limit what I see and hear, they can go to hell.
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!) (Score:2)
French Judge to Yahoo: (Score:4)
Re:ridup...ridup...ridup (Score:2)
Just translate it to English. That would probably piss them off sufficiently.
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (Long ass post) (Score:2)
Firstly, we're not talking about blocking the -sale- of these items, we're talking about the ability to view them. Blocking the sale of items is considerably easier, because mechanisms for that sort of thing already exist. It's probably already being taken care of and is by no means Yahoo!'s problem.
Next, Yahoo! isn't selling anything here, they're providing a service. You already knew that, but I just wanted to point it out. Yahoo! isn't selling Nazi artifacts.
This ruling pisses Americans off (generally) for various reasons, but I only want to discuss two of them here.
"Business Imposition"
Now, the traditional problem with a ruling like this has been "it can't be done." "It can't be done" in the Internet industry directly translates into "it hasn't been done, it will cost a lot of manhours to research and develop a way to do it, and we don't want to spend that money."
France is replying to this claim (which Yahoo! made way back when the ruling was first passed down) by saying "too bad. Do it or else." Yahoo!, an American corporation, isn't going to take lightly to a foriegn country's government imposing regulations that they ordinarily wouldn't have to deal with.
Don't be surprised if this becomes yet another of the long strain of drawn-out legal battles over the Law of the Non-Land. Don't be surprised if it gets delegated to the WTO or some other non-aligned organization. Don't be surprised if the final ruling is a least-common-denominator solution - web content must be acceptible to the law of any area from which it is accessible.
"Cultural Imposition"
This goes both ways. France claims we're imposing on their culture by providing their citizens a way to break the law. Most of the Americans in this discussion contend that Yahoo! is following every law that applies to them, and France is applying legal rulings where they have no jurisdiction. Who bends?
The Solution
Technically speaking, the most sensible configuration for blocking these "illegal" internet requests to pages containing material pertaining to Nazi artifacts, is for the blocking mechanism to be a part of Yahoo!'s network. The reasons for this are obvious.
In terms of financial requirements and responsibility, however, it makes more sense for the French government or related organizations to develop the technology required to perform the block. They are the ones who WANT this imposition to happen, so they should impose it themselves. In turn, Yahoo! should, as a responsible and respectful member of the global community, agree to put these blocks in place and allow the French to maintain and administer them.
Finally
We're not trying to piss anybody off. America's culture may be younger and far more promiscuous, but it is -our culture.- We have the right to broadcast whatever our law permits us to, under our regulations. No foriegn government has any say in the way that right is interpreted. The French, on the other hand, are responsible for enforcing their own laws.
If the pissing contests can be abandoned, Yahoo! and the French government, and any other parties with vested interest, can solve this problem together, since it is obviously a matter that needs a solution. If not, well, let the flaming commence!
Not quite (Score:4)
I think you got a few things wrong:
America restricts the rights to see nudity and drink alchol from all minors.
And all majors as well, to a degree. Can you see people having sex at 3:00 PM on any public station anywhere in the USA? Can you buy beer on Sunday in Georgia?
Once you're of age, have at it! Download
porn off the internet, get those smutty DVDs, watch Pay-Per-View sex show.
Except that lawmakers have traditionally tried to heavily regulate that as well. There are still laws on the books regulating how, with whom, and with what devices you are allowed to have sex.
The official reason that TV and radio is censored is that children can view it without restriction.
But the real reason that TV and radio is censored is because people want to use the law as a club to beat up the things that they think are immoral.
So while I agree with the spirit of your post, I feel like some of the details are not quite correct. America is still very backward when it comes to sex. Spend a few weeks (or hell, even a few days) in Amsterdam and you'll see what I mean.
French Views are not American Views (Score:3)
Re:Annoys the hell? (Score:3)
France has full right to pass laws against its citizens from trafficking in Hate symbols. But in trying to enforce them on a global scale, France has fallen into a myopic point-of-view that by tweaking a parameter, its citizens will magically be spared the hate symbols on the internet.
Fascism is on the rise in Europe. Yahoo auctions aren't going to impede or help at all. Anti-Hate legislation in these countries will.
Re:Censor nazism or sex? (aka 1st amdt, my ass!) (Score:5)
I'm sorry, I just can't agree. First of all, you can't really compare the two restrictions of rights - America restricts the rights to see nudity and drink alchol from all minors. Once you're of age, have at it! Download porn off the internet, get those smutty DVDs, watch Pay-Per-View sex show. Have a beer and watch a porno - go ahead. You can do that. The reason that the definition of porn is so broad so that even artistic nudity is considered pornographic (or is it? There is a nice "old world" map at my former highschool that definately has a prominant naked women in it) is that the most vocal against porn are just that crazy. And most people don't want to come out in favor of porn. ("See, he thinks that a women's naked brest is OK for our children to see! He supports pornography!" instead of "he supports basic rights to freedom of speach." It's easy to take more rational thinking about what is pornography out of context so it becomes political suicide to go for laxing restrictions.)
The official reason that TV and radio is censored is that children can view it without restriction. (That's where all this internet filtering fun comes from too.) Many people feel that we should "protect" the "impressionable youth" (and then bitch about the apathy of said youth later - hmmm... let's think a bit...).
Blocking out Nazi artifacts (that's really what they are - historical artifacts) to all people is just stupid. I could see an argument against letting younger children view - it mostly involves the "impressionable youth" bit again - but against anyone? It's just stupid. There's also the "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" bit. Ignoring it doesn't solve anything. I'd rather live in a nation that censors content with the intent to proect only minors so that once you're "of age" you can view without restrictions, rather than one that assumes everyone is better off without being able to see Nazi material. But to each their own - if you think being able to see nudity is more important than learning about the past, why not? It's not my place to judge. I just would rather live in America.
Ignorance (Score:3)
Oh...I know -- let's ignore the past. That will make everything much better.
--
Re:Frenchie (Score:3)
Many things happened since this old decision (Score:5)
Re:I can understand (Score:3)
If you were living in, oh, the former USSR, I'd wager you wouldn't be wishing for freedom to purchase Nazi Memorablila. You'd be wishing for freedom of speech, vote, and privacy...
"Freedom of shopping" might be *a* right, but it's by no means a *basic* right. And even "Freedom of speech" can and is limited by our government. (Slander? Libel? Shouting fire in a crowded theater?)
isn't it funny... (Score:5)
How can these be the same people who fashioned that proud lady in New York's harbor?
Have they learned nothing? The most powerful weapons the Nazi's possessed were not fashioned of steel and gunpowder, but crafted of words. Words that carefully rewrote history in the minds of their people. They so realized the power of this weapon that they quickly moved against those who offered words of truth or opposition.
The French are starting down a dangerous path that may leave their view of history distorted and risk having their children relive the tragedies and evils of the past.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
Re:How can they regulate? (Score:4)
Nice theory. Unfortunately, the UK government has a fairly effective way of suppressing unwanted TV channels on satellite, known as a "proscription" order: they make it directly illegal for any company subject to UK law (any company with an office in the UK) to advertise with that channel, as well as making advertising the channel in the UK illegal, and selling access to that channel. Oh, and they make it a criminal offence to possess videotapes which haven't been censored by the British Board of Film Censorship (now renamed "Classification", but the function's the same).
In theory, Yahoo could just put two fingers up to the court. In practice, that would cost them all their revenue from any multinational advertising with them (Coca Cola, IBM, Microsoft, Mars) - European governments have become pretty good at suppressing free speech.
In a related story... (Score:5)
Woah! Wait a min! (Score:5)
We're going about this ALL wrong!
We simply need to have yahoo put a big button up on it's site to get in, asking: "Are you french?" (Yes/No). If they answer No, then everything is fine. If they answer yes, then it takes them to pokemon.com or something.
But wait, it gets better.
Under the DMCA, they could claim that this is an access control measure! And since american corperations have already demonstrated their willingness and ability to go after people in foreign countries, any evil French 1337 h4x0rz who got around the protection and offended themselves by accident could be hanged by the Yahoo mafia, as an example to others!
And if anyone in france complained, we could just say something witty like "if you expect us to adhere to your ridiculous laws, then you have to adhere to ours. And ours are riduclouser."
That's it, rather than fight all these annoying, yet legally powerful examples of absurdity in action, we should just get them to fight each other! I imagine that it wouldn't take more than a few hangings for french judges to get the point...
On the one hand you are correct. (Score:5)
Not only is the French law stupid and unenforcable, ( when such laws exist the people ALWAYS simply create a black market following free trade principles, they did this even in the USSR), BUT. . .
I am a Jew. Much of my family died in WWII. I know people with tattoos. None in my family though, my family wasn't quite so lucky. My family was not only killed, but their villages were destroyed and * all records that they had even existed were exunged from maps and public records.* I myself only exist because a few members had managed to emigrate between the wars. This was not easy for them, they were slaves. They were white, European, living in the 20th century, and slaves. They went from being slaves of the Czar to being slaves of the politburo.
All of this is just to lay some background for my opinion on the matter at hand.
The ONLY way to fight the rise facism and nazism in the future is to remember.
* Those who forget the past are condemed to repeat it.*
This quote is attributed to George Santayan, but dear George only made a memerable phrase of a sentiment that goes back in the written record at LEAST as far as Sun Tzu, and Napoleon once spoke almost the exact same words.
Here's what everyone who is concerned about such matters SHOULD do. Buy a dagger. One with SS prominantly displayed on the hilt. Pay whatever you have to get it and treasure it.
Now, take that dagger and stab it as hard as you can into your desktop, or your mantlepiece or perhaps your doorframe, someplace where you have to see it many times a day.
Everytime you look at it, stop. . . and make the mental climb up to the top of Masada and repeat to yourself:
"Never again, never again, never again."
THAT is the way to deal with the legacy of Nazism.
Hide your head in the historical sand and someday you'll wake up to find a bayonet stuck in your butt because you never saw it coming.
Re:How can they regulate? (Score:5)
If the French don't want the traffic, it seems it should be the responsibility of their ISPs to filter it. Otherwise, this akin to saying "We don't like Marcel Marceau, so you can't transmit any programs with him in it", rather than us just telling cable carriers that we shall carry no programming with him in it (and we shouldn't. I hate mimes.)
Once again, this simply reflects the ignorance of the law (and government officials in general) of how the internet works. Websites don't "send" traffic, people request it. Solve the problem in your own country, not someone elses.
And while I'm certainly no fan of Nazi war memorabilia (I do want an Enigma machine, tho. Anyone got one for sale?), who is the government to tell their people what they can and cannot own? That's just censorship and oppression. And perhaps a violation of human rights. If YOU don't like war memorabilia, then how about YOU don't buy any? Don't inflict your viewpoints/religion/etc on me. Live it for yourself.
--jcwren