Do you Yahoo? Do you seig heil?

Yahoo has just won a court victory of the sort that most corporations hope their dearest enemies might "win".

Two French human-rights groups had sued Yahoo in France over Yahoo's continuing auction display of Nazi memorabilia under a French law that deals with symbols of racist oppression, and they won. Yahoo, in response, did what it had to: it removed the offending materials from its French site. But it left them up on its US site.

The groups sued Yahoo in the US, alleging that, being international in inherent nature, Yahoo US was still in violation of French law. A US Federal court agreed; Yahoo appealed (wonderful sense of pr there). On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the lower court had erred in deciding it had jurisdiction, in that the matter had not yet been tried in a US court, so that the case was, as lawyers put it, "unripe" for judgement. The Court explicitly warned Yahoo that they take risks with their actions that other countries may find their actions criminal or actionable.

I don't, as many here know, think a very great deal of Google, but Yahoo has always seemed like the retarded child of the SE family, and if this doesn't clinch it, I don't what would.

Yes, we have triumphed! We can legally pander to Nazi aficionados!

As Joe Isuzu used to say, "Wow, whatta concept!"

 

I just makes you shake your head. What is wrong with these people? 6,000,000 people died in concentration camps. Hell it was even worse than Guantanamo. And these corporations don't get it.

Their Corporate right to pursue a profit, in any way possible, obviously has much more moral and ethical suasion than than simple fact like somebody trying to eradicate and entire ethnic entity from the face of the earth.

 

Yahoo is evil says Sergy.

 

Let me first state that in no way do I condone the sale or otherwise profiting from nazi materials in any way.

That said, I do have a problem with a court system that would allow a suit by a french party against a US corporation for something which is not illegal in the US. How in the h*** can a US court presume to find a US corporation guilty of a french law in the US? Am I the only one that think's there is something wrong with this picture?

 

They can't--that's just the point. That's the "big victory" for Yahoo.

Also, it's not "guilt"--it's a civil, not criminal, matter. The French organizations wanted, oh, an injunction or restraining order or some such--what's called "equitable relief" (that is, that the court order some act to be performed, or not performed, rather than award money). Nations do pay some attention to actions of their citizens found illegal in other nations, and may or may not take account. It's analogous to the way the different states of the U.S. normally give "full faith and credit" to certain acts of other states that are purely state matters--so if you get married in Oklahoma, you're married in Montana and Rhode Island, and all 50, even though marriage is a purely state matter.

The Court of Appeals did not find for Yahoo on the merits: they dismissed the case as "not yet ripe", a legal term of art that signifies that the plaintiff has not yet gone up the legal ladder pursuing their matter. As I understand it, the French organizations can start over by instituting suit in the U.S. to demonstrate that Yahoo is in violation of French law--essentially hold the same trial they already held in France--then, if they get a favorbale decision (which is highly likely), proceed to attempt to stop Yahoo's actions with injunctions or temporary restraining orders based on that judgement.

 

This is the part I don't understand. This is why I think so many people are fed up with the court system, because so many out of touch liberal judges make so many stupid decisions that make the normal people wonder "what in the hell were you thinking?"

 

The part I don't understand is what you're talking about.

What is "liberal" or "conservative" about the ajudication here? What is "stupid" about the decision and the likely future direction of the matter?

A point you have always to keep firmly in mind is that it is not the business of courts to dispense "justice"--it is the business of courts to dispense law. It is the business of lawmakers--legislators--to dispense "justice" by making just laws.

If a judge follows a law, she gets dumped on for "silly" decisions if the law is silly; if a judge deviates from the letter of a silly law to try to dispense a reasonable solution, he gets dumped on for "judicial activism". The public wants it coming and going. To most, the perfect judicial system is one that always decides things the way they would, and to hell with what the *law* is, not to speak of the facts or simple morality.

Another point that is commonly overlooked in this era of "entitlement", when everyone is "entitled" to an opinion on everything, and to hell with having to know squat about the subject, is that judges and juries are in possession of vastly more factual information about the matters they decide than Joe Sikspak who watches Fox "news". That doesn't mean they're always right, or anything so silly, but it means that they had a basis for their decisons that is simply unknown to anyone who has not followed the case in the courtroom hour after hour and day after day. That is why we *have* trials, instead of 30-second decision-making, which is what one gets from people who "know" about cases from what they see on TV (or, in the rare instances where people can read without moving their lips, what they get from a three-paragraph summary in some newspaper).

If you would prefer to abandon the concept of laws, and of courts that apply them to facts under rules of evidence for obtaining those facts, and go back to the system classically described as "the pasha under the tree"[1], you are entitled to that preference, but you will find--I certainly hope--few Americans who will agree with you.


[1]The "pasha under the tree" is a phrase symbolizing instant, arbitrary, idiosyncratic justice: a pasha, a governmental official of considerable authority in old Turkey, would "hold court" by sitting out in the shade of a tree while accused persons were presented; he would listen to the charges, ask a question or two, command "release him" or "off with his head", and proceed thus till done.

 

Whoa, like the warden said in Cool Hand Luke, "what we've got here, is a failure to communicate."

What part of "then, if they get a favorable decision (which is highly likely), proceed to attempt to stop Yahoo's actions with injunctions or temporary restraining orders based on that judgment." and my comment that it is ludicrous didn't you understand?

What would posses US judge ever give a favorable decision to a foreign person, corporation or other entity? This is our country and our rules. If france doesn't like it, let them go pout in the corner, tough sheite. It's one thing to have a french version website in france and have to follow france's rules. It's entirely another for some french crybaby to whine to our courts that they can still see the auctions on the US service. It's the internet, it's the way the internet works. If they don't like it, they don't have to look at it. For a US court to tell a US entity they have to stop doing something that is perfectly legal in the US because some someone from france is complaining is absolutely idiotic.

And your comment, "If you would prefer to abandon the concept of laws" is way off the mark. In fact you're so far out in left field, you’re not even in the stadium. Your arcane reference to "pasha under the tree" has no bearing here unless you’re inferring I’m some ignorant hillbilly who’s unable to comprehend how the judicial system operates. I’m impressed that you have such a powerful command of your vocabulary and of history, but now that you’ve resorted to name calling, I can see there is no further discussion here.

 

I think it would depend what the Nazi things were - and im not the one to decide what should and shouldn't go on there - some people are simply collectors of war artifacts and posters, hats, etc would be part of a WWII collection.

 

If you require a clarification of what the legal issues are, here, the first one I came on seems satisfactory:

http://www.mediainstitute.org/ONLINE/FAM2003/2-d.html

Among the salient highlights:

". . . if the plaintiff groups want to enforce the judgment, they would need to persuade a U.S. court to recognize it and apply it against Yahoo!’s U.S. service. However, judgments of foreign courts are not entitled to automatic recognition or enforcement in American courts. Whether a U.S. court will honor a foreign judgment is determined by principles of international respect and cooperation."

Nor is what is being asked some complete international shutdown.

"In specific terms, the order of the Paris county court directed Yahoo! to: (1) re-engineer its content servers in the United States and elsewhere to enable them to recognize French Internet protocol (IP) addresses and block access to Nazi material by end users assigned such IP addresses; (2) require end users with 'ambiguous' IP addresses to provide Yahoo! with a declaration of nationality when they arrive at Yahoo!’s home page or when they initiate any search using the word 'Nazi'; and (3) implement these changes within three months or face a penalty of 100,000 Francs (approximately $13,300) for each day of non-compliance."

In other words, their concern is entirely with what Yahoo is serving to French citizens in France.

Remarks about "pouting" and "crybabies" are not widley felt to promote meaningful dialogue.