"In a decision that could expose U.S.-based Web sites to free speech laws of other nations, a federal appeals court on Monday found that Yahoo could not escape legal action in France for violating a French ban on the sale of Nazi-related items," reports, erm, Yahoo.
"The case stems from a fight over whether Yahoo could be sanctioned by the French courts for allowing the sale of a host of Nazi items, including copies of Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and materials alleging that the gas chambers of the Holocaust didn't exist."
Comment: This long-running battle between Yahoo and the French courts highlights several important questions that could drastically affect the web's future.
Who governs the internet, and what laws should it conform to? After all, few suggest that China's draconian internet regulation is anything but anti-democratic censorship - but seen in terms of the Yahoo decision, is the Chinese restriction of "free speech" so different from the French?
In a global environment, we seem confused about how to enforce the law across national borders. Do you abide by the law's "lowest common denominator"? (in which case horrific regimes could try and enforce their laws on other nations) Or do you play to a new set of rules? (which could drastically affect existing national laws). Or, as some libertarians might argue, do you leave it totally unregulated?
Where do we draw the line?
