US court rules against Yahoo in Nazi memorabilia case

[shugah]

US court rules against Yahoo in Nazi memorabilia case

BEIJING, Jan. 13 (Xinhuanet) -- A U.S. appeals court declined to intervene on behalf of Yahoo Inc., the world's largest media company, in a landmark ruling in France over the sale of Nazi memorabilia on the company's websites.

In a case pitting free speech protections against a French law barring the sale of Nazi memorabilia, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had rejected French plaintiffs attempts to enforce French laws against U.S. companies in U.S. courts. The appeals court ruled that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction in the case.

That should send a warning to online companies that operate globally that they will have to pay more attention to the local laws of countries in which they operate, said Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/13/content_4048779.htm

[Scooter24]

1. It's an interesting legal case...

but in my opinion, if a US-based company is being sued because it violates foreign laws that contradict constitutionally-protected rights granted to a company in this country, US courts should have precident.

This case has Supreme Court review written all over it.

[shugah]

2. i did find the ruling interesting

from the article: The ban on sales of Nazi memorabilia in France raised questions about whose laws apply to websites that can be viewed outside their home country, as well as whether courts in one country should be able to assume jurisdiction over the activities of internet companies overseas.

questions have certainly been raised, but i don't think any of them have been answered with this ruling.

[Lithos]

3. I believe the issues are these:

1) France does not allow the sale of Nazi crap inside of France or to French citizens
2) Yahoo! does not have the protections in place to guarantee item 1. They cannot insure that someone in France will not violate the French law by purchasing Nazi crap over Yahoo!'s infrastructure.

If Yahoo! did have the protections in place, French law would not apply. Yes, to implement #2 is technically impossible (what with the number of proxies in place, etc.), but then again the French law is impossible to administer except after the fact and is the real problem, the idea of jurisdiction is sound. (The idea of proxies still applies - you can always have someone in another country do the transaction and then you pick it up from them.).

[GodlessBiker]

4. This story is bizarre.

The lower courts rejected French plaintiffs' attempts to enforce French law in US courts.

The appeals court held that US courts have no jurisdiction in the case.

How is that a reversal of the lower court? I would think Yahoo would be happy with that ruling.

[Scooter24]

6. It effectively nullified

the lower courts opinion by saying that court never had permission to hear it in the first place.

This is similar to the Newdow case where the Supreme Court ruled that Newdow lacked standing to sue on behalf of his daughter because he didn't have custody. That court didn't address the issue of "under God" in the pledge.

[GodlessBiker]

7. But the net result is that the French plaintiffs can't sue Yahoo here, no?

[Hyernel]

5. Making the stuff illegal only raises the value of it.

The Nazi stuff should not be hidden, lest we forget. Should be in museums with clear historical lessons against fascism. (Might help us avoid neocons.)