On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:00:01 -0700, Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2004, at 10:42 AM, The Fool wrote: > > >> From: Dave Land <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> The Mercury News wrote: > >> > >>> "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. > >> > >> While the French censorship attempt is bothersome, this seems to be > >> the > >> real revelation in this story: that a big business is being expected > >> to > >> live in the real world. > > > > No. The point is that France is saying thier laws overide the U.S. > > Constitution, for U.S. companies __IN THE U.S.A.__ And the U.S. court > > of > > appeals says sure that ole constitution don't mean sh!t. > > I disagree. If Yahoo was polluting a lake on the US/Canada border, > would you argue that a Canadian court's attempt to bring the polluter > to justice was saying that their laws override the U.S. Constitution? > To the French, Yahoo is polluting a space we hold in common, the > Internet. The French are concerned that Yahoo is shouting "Movie" > in a crowded firehouse.
The problem with the "polluted lake" metaphor is that 1) on the internet every nation can and does have its own definition of "pollution", which may be diametrically opposite another nation's, and 2) if you accept that nations have a right to dictate against "pollution" occurring *outside* their borders, then following that to its logical it, it gives all nations say over all internet content. My concern is that it's not just businesses using the internet for speech. Saying "a big business is being expected to live in the real world." doesn't cover all the cases. What happens when it's not Yahoo getting fined, but a private person threatened with arrest in France or Germany or China because his US web site violates their speech laws? They can do that regardless of this court decision, but it'd be nice if the US legal system gave some better precedent in terms of protecting online free speech in the US from international prosecution rather than just saying they won't get involved unless the US legal system is invoked. -bryon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
