An international discussion of
the implications of the Yahoo! Inc. nazi memorabilia dispute 
Interviews organized by
Lionel Thoumyre
with the collaboration of Stéphane Desrochers
The Yahoo! Case: a brief overview
On
November 20, 2000, the first vice president of the Tribunal de grande
instance de Paris, Mr. Jean-Jacques Gomez, ordered
an American company, Yahoo! Inc. to comply with the injunction
handed down on May 22 of the same year. The language of the injunction
enjoined Yahoo! Inc. to ‘’take all measures to dissuade and make
impossible any access via "yahoo.com" to the auction
service for Nazi merchandise as well as to any other site or service that may
be construed as an apologiy for Nazism or contesting the reality of Nazi
crimes.’’
This
decision constitutes the third and final chapter of a proceeding instituted by
three French-based antiracism groups. Between the rulings on May 22 and on
November 20, a panel of experts was commissioned to prepare a report
discussing possible filtering measures for safeguarding the French public from
the illicit content. Based on this report, which details several techniques
that enable visitor-identification by country of origin, and which purports to
be 70% to 90% efficient, the French judge affirmed the terms of the
conviction. This condemnation stimulates the debate concerning conflict
of jurisdiction and freedom of
expression in cyberspace and can bring about a new paradigm of regulation. On December 21, 2000,
Yahoo! Inc., formally
asked an American judge to clarify these issues of law.
The fact that
Yahoo! Inc. has decided as of February 10, 2001 to eliminate the sale of hate
related items from its auction site and as a result, conform to the French
court ruling, does not necessarily bring this legal debate to a close. In
recognition of the global impact the Yahoo! case will have on how foreign
legal systems will respond to illegal information entering their jurisdictions,
Juriscom.net has taken the initiative to invite some of today's most
recognized professors of technology law, to address the numerous legal
implications that follow from this case.
For more details
on the Yahoo! Case, see Richard Salis : "A
Look at how U.S Based Yahoo! was Condemned by French Law"
Contributions to the debate
> Michael GEIST, Law professor
- University of Ottawa
«
We
are beginning to see courts moving toward an “effects based” analysis for
Internet jurisdiction »
> Joel R. REIDENBERG,
Professor of Law - Fordham University (New York)
«
Companies
will have to comply with the laws where they target business »
> Pierre TRUDEL, Professor of
Law - University of Montreal
«
Les
mesures de censure sont une mauvaise façon de réguler les conflits engendrés
par la circulation de l’information
»
>
Yves POULLET, doyen
de
la faculté de droit, directeur du des
Facultés universitaires notre dame de la Paix de Namur
«
C'est
à l'aune de ses propres principes constitutionnels et du respect dû à la
liberté d'expression dans un pays démocratique que l'État ou le juge
interviendra de manière exceptionnelle
» 
Forthcoming: contribution of Madame Isabelle de
Lamberterie, director of research of the CNRS (France).
