babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Yahoo must face French legal action

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Yahoo must face French legal action
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 24 August 2004 09:07 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
By Howard Mintz, Mercury News

In a decision that could expose U.S.-based Web sites to free speech laws of other nations, a federal appeals court on Monday found that Yahoo could not escape legal action in France for violating a French ban on the sale of Nazi-related items.

A divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that U.S. courts did not have blanket power to block foreign countries from enforcing their laws against Web sites such as Yahoo, the latest chapter in a case that has tested Internet free speech rights in unsettled global legal terrain.

The case stems from a fight over whether Yahoo could be sanctioned by the French courts for allowing the sale of a host of Nazi items, including copies of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and materials alleging that the gas chambers of the Holocaust didn't exist.


Read it here.

[ 24 August 2004: Message edited by: Snuckles ]


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Evil i
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6557

posted 24 August 2004 11:22 PM      Profile for Evil i     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
"Yahoo cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content may be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting costs," Judge Warren Ferguson wrote for a 2-1 majority.

After some thought, isn't any website viewable all over the world.
So could babble fall under some dictator's laws about voicing personal opinion.

[ 25 August 2004: Message edited by: Evil i ]


From: The Island of Alberta | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
aRoused
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1962

posted 25 August 2004 03:45 AM      Profile for aRoused     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Perhaps technically, yes, but most dictators are more concerned with firewalling their country's access so this 'illegal' content never makes it in.
From: The King's Royal Burgh of Eoforwich | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641

posted 25 August 2004 07:52 AM      Profile for HalfAnHourLater     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Not that I agree/defend in any way with the contents of the website in question, but if we go down this road, it will be 'open season' on all websites. That is any website anywhere could be subjected to some country's legal witchunt.
Alternatively, websites will have to come with a disclaimer 'if you are form a,b,c,d,...and so on, please, it is illegal for you to view this site. Thus requiring all website hosts to become experts on the subtleties of state legal systems worlwide!

[ 25 August 2004: Message edited by: HalfAnHourLater ]


From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 25 August 2004 08:56 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What if, instead of Nazi memorabilia, Yahoo was selling automatic weapons that are perfectly legal in the United States but banned in Canada and an American court decided they have the power to prevent Canada from taking action?
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 August 2004 09:16 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why would Canada need to take action, though? Presumably, even if a Canadian bought one of those weapons online, he would run into trouble importing it -- there is where Canadian law would need enforcing.

This is a thorny problem, is it not? I don't entirely follow the ruling -- there's a complicated para there that apparently means the ruling has minimal impact -- josh? Can you explain that?

Hate-speech laws are a thorny problem. The Europeans have even more extensive and powerful ones than we do.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 25 August 2004 09:34 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, for something more analogous, how about child pornography from a hypothetical country where it is legal?

Or a product that in of itself is perfectly legal, but doesn't meet Canadian safety standards, such as flammable children's clothing?

I sure don't have any solutions here, but I don't see how the American court could rule any other way, especially since their ruling wouldn't mean anything in France anyway.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 August 2004 09:39 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, somebody's rulings seem to mean something somewhere -- and presumably Yahoo has to care, because they want their earnings from France. I just can't sort the ruling out exactly. What is that bit about the French bringing their case into the USian legal system?

We need our American legal adviser. Paging josh ... paging josh ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 August 2004 10:09 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No matter what the contraband item being hypothetically sold to Canadians via a web site, it still has to cross our borders, and that's where law enforcement should take place, not in cyberspace. If France doesn't want Nazi memorabilia being sold to its citizens, they need to beef up their Customs, not sue Yahoo.

If I'm not mistaken, there are a few European countries in which bestiality pornography, and pornography involving 17 year olds, is legal. Is Canada suing them? Or just not letting this product into Canada?

quote:
Perhaps technically, yes, but most dictators are more concerned with firewalling their country's access so this 'illegal' content never makes it in.

They should also consider this route if they believe that seeing such memorabilia online will be harmful to citizens. But what's the French word for "ostrich"?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
scooter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5548

posted 25 August 2004 10:29 AM      Profile for scooter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
After some thought, isn't any website viewable all over the world.

No. Many web sites are unreachable from Canada or automatically redirect you to local only sites. There are only a small number of connections to the world. They are located in Vancouver, Toronto, and I think Montreal so it is very easy to do.

With some smarts you can get around this limitation but few people have the resources or know how.

A study was done a few years ago showing that internet sites are clumped together with few outside connections. If you know the address of a site you had a chance of connecting. Many sites around the world can not be found using your favorite search engines since the engines are not fully connected to a 'clump'.


From: High River | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
HalfAnHourLater
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4641

posted 25 August 2004 10:41 AM      Profile for HalfAnHourLater     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
OK, for something more analogous, how about child pornography from a hypothetical country where it is legal?

Or a product that in of itself is perfectly legal, but doesn't meet Canadian safety standards, such as flammable children's clothing?

I sure don't have any solutions here, but I don't see how the American court could rule any other way, especially since their ruling wouldn't mean anything in France anyway.


Sure, it is a serious problem, and hence I added that websites might have to start adding country disclaimers. And yes, canadians who import weapons, or abuse children could still be tried under canadian law. Similarly I think there is a difference between issues pertaining to human rights/freedoms, which are acspted by UN memebers as universal, and other state laws.

I think it distrubing in fact, that if I happen to live in a country which allows this or that, and that (not universal rights) and a legal system in another country could try and stop me from reporting it on a website, originating in my country. Again, perhaps disclaimers are required, letting indiciduals know that the purchasing/viewing of such material is illegal in their country.


From: So-so-so-solidarité! | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca