As many of you are familiar, France has a ban on selling racial material. Yahoo was sued under French law for not barring access of an auction page that was selling Nazi memorabilia. Here is an update to the trial. Any dopers care to comment on this latest turn of events?
Ok, first thing…the Judge in France has no legal jurisdiction over an American Company unless the US government decides to let the French court have that authority, which won’t happen. That’s why the French judge temporarily stayed his emergency order.
Second, according to the French Group’s claims, then EVERY American company has to abide by the laws of every other country in the world. It’s a legal impossibility.
The only way that French net users could be prevented from accessing American sites completely would be for either A) France disconnecting their country from every other country’s internet backbones or B) America disconnecting from every country.
Man, next time I hear someone say how egocentric and self-centered Americans are, I’m going to refer them to this case…
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - Screw the French.
And here is a link to the old debate.
And here is a link to the old debate.
Well, gee. Refreshing a post window causes a double post. Isn’t that nice.
I didn’t read all the previous thread ………….
I don’t know, is it such a wild idea ? First off:
It would be as simple as a slice of Java for Yahoo to redirect any surfer with his/her browser set to the French language default (or who come via French ISP’s) to turn them away from English language Nazi auction pages. That can be done really simply at no great expense or trouble.
Regardless of corporate HQ at Santa Clara, is Yahoo a company in France under law ? http://fr.docs.yahoo.com/rp/contact.html - would seem to say it is and therefore the Courts have juristiction.
So, it looks like the French courts are seeking to enforce French law over a company with offices in France who actively court French customers, in French.
So, is it that the French who:
- actively enforce this law,
- are sensitive to its own history and others,
- with a current racial upswing (especially in Paris and South of the country), and
- have clearly defined legislation for which, we must assume, they have a mandate from the French people
that should make a legal exception for Yahoo or:
Should Yahoo be permitted to sell whatever they like for a buck anywhere in the world regardless of individual country made law ?
Moot point, lock the cage and rumble.
Only other things that come to mind are:
(1) the current German efforts to shut down all Nazi orientated sites as soon as they come online (as you can imagine this is an ongoing now you see ‘em now you don’t kind of cyber war) because they are contrary to the German legal code.
(2) It’s important to remember WW2 happened, in part, on French soil. Trials of some of those who collaborated have taken place in recent years.
(3) Internet law is unclear in so many area’s – it will take a long time before things settle down. Gees, it took about 2,000 years to sort out what happens in international waters. International stuff is tricky.
Lord knows I find the French trying at times but I do think you have to admire their bloody minded “fuck the world, we’re doing this our way” attitude.
I hope the case puts some online operations on notice that they don’t necessarily have free rein - or should it be ‘carte blance’ ? WhatEVerrr, viva la difference !
If you blocked every browser set to display French instead of English, wouldn’t you block everyone in Quebec, and some African nations besides?
As I understand it, the judge isn’t demanding that Yahoo not auction Nazi paraphanelia; he’s ordering Yahoo to find a technical solution to prevent surfers in France from accessing it. Yahoo is under no obligation to obey, unless they want to shut down their operations in France entirely.
Uncle Bill, for example, has 5 different defaults (in Win98, at least) for French, including ‘Canadian French’. Not suggesting it will stop people who really want to gain access but it might allow for compromise.
With regards other non-France based ‘French-French’ default users (like maybe bits of Africa), I don’t know enough tech to tell you if it’s possible to distinguish by Continent, ISP, telecom, etc.
Agree with your summary of the French position.
Well, the offices of Yahoo in France are complying with French law. The conflict comes in when French courts demand that Yahoo block users from accessing American based web-sites auctioning Nazi stuff.
To all Americans who think the French are trying to legislate beyond their jurisdiction I will remind you that the USA does that even more and I do not see you protesting. Check out http://www.ofaccompliance.com/what%20is%20ofac.htm
How is this relevant?
Didn’t appreciate that attitude in Hitler. Didn’t appreciate it in Saddam Hussein. Don’t appreciate it in the French.
From the OFAC page listed by sailor:
Where’s the problem? The OFAC seems to be saying here that its job is to stop people under American jurisdiction from trading with nations, groups, or people upon whom the U.S. has imposed economic sanctions. However you feel about sanctions as a practical or moral matter, it would seem that OFAC’s actions are well within U.S. jurisdiction, wouldn’t it? And if Yahoo has offices in France, or is even registered as a French company (note please that I could not be more unversed in French commercial law), I’d have to say that they are within the jurisdiction of French courts. If Yahoo were just an American company’s site being accessed by French users, then they shouldn’t be subject to French law, though the users might be. Yahoo, on the other hand, because they’ve located part of their business in France, strikes me as being subject to French law.
Lux Fiat, it extends to foreign subsidiaries of American companies. Furthermore, the the Helms-Burton act applies to any foreign corporation even if it has no presence in the USA. I know directors of Canadian and Spanish companies with investments in Cuba have been denied visas to visit the USA on business. In other words, the USA is trying to punish foreign people who observe the laws of their land and not that of the USA. No European country has gone this far.
Okay, but they’re only punishing them insofar as they have jurisdiction to do so. As in: we will not allow you to do business in our country if your company’s policy conflicts with our own foreign policy (i.e., you do business with someone against whom we have sanctions in effect). Now, if you want to argue that it’s hypocritical for the U.S. to bring the full weight of the law to bear against some guy in the U.S. who tells his friend, who’s housesitting for him in Mongolia, to grab the guy’s Cuban cigars off of his dresser and keep them as a gift, while not even looking into Shell Oil for what they’re alledged to have done in Africa, well okay. But within the scope of this debate, I got no beef with OFAC.
As I said, I think France is fully within their rights to say the same thing to Yahoo as OFAC says to companies and people in the U.S. If they want to do business in France, they must obey French law. If it’s impractical for them to obey French law, they can’t do business in France. If they have no corporate presence in France, the French government has no practical means to enforce its laws anyway, so the question becomes irrelevant.
Lux Fiat, I don’t think you’re quite catching it. Yahoo has offices in France. All French-based yahoo sites and offices are complying with French law. American-based Yahoo sites and offices are operating under American law. France is trying to force American-based Yahoo to comply with their law. French-based Yahoo has nothing to do with this equation because they comply with French law. American Yahoo isn’t, because it is in America under American law. It is American Yahoo that is conflicting with French law, and that’s where France has the stick up it’s ass.
Like someone said in the other thread, if American websites are expected to abide by French law, that means they must also comply with the laws of every country in the world, which is totally inconceivable.
It’s not only conceivable, that’s basically what they’re saying: Yahoo (U.S.) must comply with French law. However as Lux Fiat noted, the only grip France has over Yahoo is French operations. Yahoo can tell the French judge to go to hell, and their American assets are perfectly safe (treaty issues notwithstanding, though I’m unaware of any treaty that may apply).
However, Yahoo’s French assets are vulnerable, so Yahoo may be forced to comply as a practical matter, or else lose those assets. Yahoo.fr could fix the problem by relocating outside France; then they’d be outside the scope of French law in principle (I wonder why they haven’t done this - perhaps the volume of traffic they get requires servers on French territory).
The distinction you seem to be missing, Monster104, is that this is ultimately a matter of realpolitik, just as Helms-Burton is.
I think that comparing to Hitler a French court’s attempt to prevent Americans selling Nazi memorabilia and Holocaust revisionist material in France is the height of bad taste.
If the French are fascists for trying to stop Americans from making a fast buck out of Zyklon-B cannisters, the Americans are fascists for Helms-Burton.