waterj2 said
That should be “maroons” 
well, since all of the good arguments have already been voiced, i’ll throw this bit of criticism into the ring.
We saved your A** Pierre, so stop whining!
Yahoo should just declare war on France. I’m sure they’ll have the white flag flying high before the email declaration hits the Presidents desk.
As others have pointed out, unfortunately yes, but you’d have to be very careful about it. I could be wrong I suppose, but let’s skip the details in case I’m right and somebody starts getting ideas.
Um, I think you misinterpreted me.
If you order product on a website, they ask for an address. If you don’t fill in a required field, the browser comes back and says something like, “Hey moron, I can’t ship it to you without an address!” Similarly, if you entered that your Year 2000 Commerative Nazi Coin was to be shipped to France, Yahoo could simply invalidate the purchase. Better yet, as I was suggesting previously, when you create a user profile (as most sites require), they could force the user to enter their country and refuse that user access to product type = “Nazi” (such as the Collectable Nazi Leader Doll Series: Hitler, Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, collect them all!) if country = “France”.
But again, it depends upon how strict the French would be on enforcing it. If the miniature die-cast Panzer with a swastika ends up under the toys or someone uses a maildrop in Brussels, is Yahoo still responsible? How do French courts stand on the issue of due diligence?
mrblue92, how do you propose your “product type” field gets filled in? Again, this falls to hiring lawyers to research every law in every country about what might be sold. Then Yahoo will have to hire people to examine everything that is sold, and compare EVERY attribute that might be pertinant to the massive and convoluted “what shit is against the law in every friggin’ armpit country in the world that can run a copper wire” document.
It is simply the death of internet commerce, with the exception of the few huge companies that can afford the massive legal expense.
This little plan of yours would not work, for the seller, or for Yahoo! at all…
Once again, it is without a question improper, even illegal for the French to impose their state’s right upon the internet. If they feel that Nazi symbolism offends them, they should begin taking measures to block it at their borders, not attempt to sue companies in the US for having it available(not to mention the french person who ordered the stuff obviously would have bought it wherever he could find it–the site was in English).
Am I to now curtail my website to the tastes of others? GaWd no…the internet is freedom, freedom cannot be stamped out by the likes of the French or anyone else out there. If I want a picture of Hitler on my site(not that I do), who are the french to sue me for it? Or any other nation for that matter.
-Sam
It’s called “good faith”. If your employee unbeknownst to you is dealing crack in the back of your building, are you held responsible? But if he puts up a sign “Crack - Aisle 7”, I doubt you’d get much sympathy.
Maybe then just the squeeky wheels get the grease. I’m not saying it’s a perfect solution (are there ever any?), but it’s a quick, cheap fix that would shift blame to the seller/buyer, where it belongs.
It’s not that I’m so much defending the French position as I am rule of law, which in theory is suppose to protect freedom. (Perhaps it doesn’t in this case, but unless you’ve got a better idea… point of a gun?) It seems to me you like a libertarian view of the internet. But how free do you make it? Do you allow slave trading? Kiddie porn? Crack via UPS? Plutonium? Nerve gas? Ebola virus samples? Before you laugh at this being ridiculous, think about someone in Iraq or Libya putting up a website server in their country to sell mailbomb services. Don’t like your fellow students? Call in sick and have mid-east terrorists blow it sky high. To me, the particular French law in question is a silly one and does not compare to these types of crimes, but the question is one of sovereignty.
OK, the internet can open up international trade barriers; should it be free from every international tariff and trade restriction, too? Where do you draw the line? If a country no longer has control over what is bought and sold within it’s borders, who does? Just the buyer and seller? I’m sure many of you would like to be free to buy anything your little heart desires, but that sometimes has to be restricted for the common good, lest every nut case gets his hands on a nuke.
Granted, the internet must change the way we look at commerce, but let’s not get so amazed by the possibilities that we neglect to see the dangers that still exist.
I don’t see these vapor “dangers” that you do. The examples you’ve provided are lame. They either happen on an everyday basis over the phone or in some other form, or they’re just plain ridiculous.
You think a site selling a warhead wouldn’t be shut down immediately? Give me a break.
-Sam
My apologies. I can see how you’d probably misinterpret my post, as I wasn’t completely clear about my position. But those strawmen are just so fun to knock down!
First, I was pointing out Yahoo might be able to comply, at least partially, to make the French happy. The first two replies are about practical compliance; the third about freedom on the internet. But yes, I went intentionally overboard on that point. More briefly, freedom in the real world is limited for practical concerns, even on the internet.
The main question of sovereignty (which I think is really the whole point) still stands. Does a country have a right to regulate what products are bought and sold within it’s borders? Absolutely. This is what the French are trying to do; I doubt they think they can prevent sale of Nazi items in the US. But I do agree with you that they are choosing a poor method. Since Yahoo is not the buyer or seller, but merely providing the equivalent of an open marketplace, they are the wrong people to sue. (They are only the right people if you are looking for the deep pockets…) Since the French buyers and sellers are likely the only ones truly violating the law, they should be the targets. Reasonably they might sue Yahoo for a list of names and addresses. Better yet they get rid of their ignorant laws which address only the symptom of hate.
I got an update today in an email-based news report:
I don’t understand why Nazi memorabilia even is illegal and France. I thought the French were more than happy to have the Germans show up and take care of their little Jewish problem. Maybe the French have a collective amnesia?
These are the same French who folded like a house of cards in 1940 and happily collaborated with the Germans in rounding up Jews and shipping them to death camps. These are the same French who prop up Francophone African dictatorships so they can still feel like an important country. These are the same French who bombed the Rainbow Warrior. Sheesh!
jmullaney & goboy: These are also the French who had one of the best organized and hardest fighting resistance movements of WWII. I’ve just visited the village of Vercours where the Maquis put up a fight so intense that the Nazis had to use gliders and paratroopers to win the battle (and raze the village, as was SOP for them). This in July 1944, where I’ve no doubt the Nazis needed these expensive troops badly elsewhere - Normandy, for example. I don’t think anyone has ever seriously doubted the courage of the Free French units in Allied service, either.
France collapsed militarily mainly due to the French high commands incompetence. It’s not as if they weren’t willing to put up a fight - they thought they were well-prepared and had put a lot of money & time into their defenses. They screwed up, plain and simple. They had - in the end - no other option than surrendering, they were beaten.
And while there’s no excusing the collaboration government, I’m not convinced that they were especially happy about it.
“More than happy to have the Germans show up and take care of their little jewish problem” ? I don’t think so, jmullaney. Some criminals willingly assisted, some obeyed orders from what they thought (or forced themselves to think) were legal authority, some were simply scared to disobey - and with good reason, too. It’s easy to pass moral judgement over a distance of 50 years. But it’s hardly fair.
And for the record: The French court decision is moronic.
S. Norman
For all I know, Revtim could be leaving important parts out of this story, but based upon the OP:
What do you mean by “allow”? Do you mean “don’t invade other countries just to tell them how to run their lives”? Then yes, we should “allow” these things.
Well, these are different from the prior items. These items have had restrictions placed upon them by treaties, so we would have a legitimite right to stop them.
While the idea of Iraqis or Libyans sending each other mailbombs may “offend our collective consciousness”, that doesn’t give us the right to stop it.
Unless your fellow students happen to live in Iraq or Libya, that would involve sending the mailbombs to another country, meaning that it is no longer just Iraq or Libya’s business.
Yes, it is a question of sovereignty. And this suit violates US sovereignty.
Did you see any mention of a tariff or trade restriction?
I think that the line is very clear. Advertisements in other countries are not under France’s jurisdiction. It is only if a product is actually shipped to France that it enters France’s jurisdiction.
We’re not discussing what’s bought and sold, we’re talking about what’s advertised. And we’re not talking about stuff within France’s borders, we’re talking about stuff outside France’s borders.
If only the French fought the actual Nazis as hard as they’re fighting the memorabilia…
Spiny norman, two words: Vichy France. The myth of the Resistance is just-- a myth.
Yes, there were brave Frenchmen (and women) who fought the Nazis, but the sad reality is that the majority of the French collaborated with the Germans, especially when it came to rounding up Jews. Check out The War Against The Jews by Lucy Davidowicz.
I posted a link in the OP to the original story, and the email story I copied in was complete. You have access to 100 percent of the information I have.
Without getting into if the decision is right or wrong. The USA has laws that “violate” other country’s sovereignty even more than France so don’t get so worked up about this.
A foreign company doing business with Cuba will not be allowed to do business in the USA and if they do they will be sued. How about that? Why is it OK for the US to do that and not for the French? huh?
I don’t see what the performance of the French army or resistance in WWII has to do with the issue at hand. The German war machine was the most fearsome ever built in human history, and France, which shared a long border with Germany, was, what, only the second nation to face it? I grant you their military leaders seem to have had their heads up their asses through the thirties, and then it was too late, but what does any of that have to do with Yahoo?
My main discomfort here comes not from the French attempting to regulate goods sold in France over the internet, but rather with the notion that an American company can go afoul of French law for something as idiosyncratic and nebulous as “an offense against the collective memory”. This seems a peculiarly French crime, and one that would not pass muster with our own ideas of what the limits of government power should be. Is this the actual terminology of the offense? How exactly is the “collective memory” defined by the French, especially since they are expecting foreign companies to somehow share it, or at least have a detailed awareness of it? If I want to sell goods over the internet in France, do I have to keep someone on staff to tell me what is or is not part of France’s collective remembrance? Is there some sort of French government certifying body for such a “rememberer”? I doubt every Frenchman shares the “official” version of France’s collective memory.
This sounds like a vague and ambiguous crime that can be arbitrarily applied to suit the political winds of the moment. A law against which there is no possible defense, really, kind of like McCarthy’s “unamerican activities”. It’s bad enough France would carry such a law on the books for its own citizens, but to attempt to enforce it on a foreign entity is hard to justify. At the moment, anti-American feelings seem to be running high in France (though certainly no worse than the anti-French sentiments expressed in this thread), and I am inclined to be sympathetic to Yahoo until I get a better feel for exactly what “criminal” activity they are supposed to have engaged in.
BTW, this is a good example for the recent thread “What’s wrong with a one-world government?”.
The Ryan:
Did you read my last post on this thread? I had already pretty much addressed those particular points the last time through this two months ago.
Go away kid, ya bother me.