Court dismisses Yahoo's free speech lawsuit

TalkBack 13 of 17:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Civil society and Civics Education: "appear to be objective accomplices of the Nazi-like attempts against freedom"

There is a particular type of political theory that qualifies as fascism (Naziism qualifies), but 'Nazi' is not a general-purpose term for disparaging anyone who disagrees with you. That is merely an 'ad hominem' argument (trying to defeat an argument by insulting or defaming the person making the argument).

"absolutely impossible that those defending the US and Europe courts in that Yahoo vs Nazis affair could be sincere: it is too obvious, even for the dumbest,"

Aside from the blatant 'ad hominem' argument, this is factually false on its face. The article explained several things that count. Among them: (1) several judges didn't think the issue was 'ripe,' that there wasn't a clear enough controversy to clearly define the issues. If an issue isn't ripe, then a court decision cannot be expected to settle the matter. Popular political bombast to the contrary, US courts do not go around looking for more things to put on their dockets. If they have to handle something, they want to do it ONE time. (2) The French courts did not have jurisdiction over a US firm operating in the US. This is an important issue in Internet law: to what extent can a country regulate the Internet; if a court wants to enforce restrictions on obscene matter, does it have authority over a site in another jurisdiction when the purchaser reached out from the court's territory to make a purchase? A genuine and difficult question.

"Freedom to speak is freedom for anyone, even any 'hate speech' - or it would be at once too easy for a government to forbid anyone to speak"

The only way to maintain freedom of speech is to maintain it for jerks and slimeballs, but it cannot be absolute: that is license, which is rightfully disparaged. No government can operate with absolutely no controls on speech. Besides the familiar 'shouting fire in a crowded theater,' speech creating a ?lear and present danger' is not protected by the 1st Amendment. Interestingly, US precedent allows laws to considerably restrain offensive sexual content under the Supreme Court's definition of 'obscene,' but 'slasher films' get full protection. Guess which one has been shown to actually increase the likelihood of violent sexual acts? If you don't like that situation, think about just how you would rewrite the rules without doing more damage than you're fixing.

"- in a given country, nothing can be imposed unless by a law voted by the entire people;"

So, representative democracy is entirely illegitimate? Just try to imagine a country where every law, every regulation, had to be voted on by the whole population. Can you say 'anarchy?'

"- in international realm, nothing can be imposed unless by an equivalent (like UN resolutions)."

Would these have to be unanimous, too? There are a lot of folks who refuse to grant the UN any supernational authority at all. In fact, almost everyone would deny that the UN could order any country to change its laws. There are a lot of Americans who are very upset that the UN is creating resolutions and conventions (e.g. Convention on the Rights of the Child) that are not what the US government wants. International Law has some force, but largely to legitimate the use of sanctions and force against countries; it is, of course, increasingly critical in this global economy.

There are plenty of contentious issues in International Law, such as the International Criminal Court; the US does not recognize this court because it is unacceptable that someone from the US could be called to answer to the Court. Those who consider the Iraq War illegitimate, not to mention the treatment of prisoners, get rather cynical about the reasons for the Bush Administration rejecting the jurisdiction of the Court.

"recent US wars were obviously and totally unjustified, whether on the political, law, human, or ethical POVs."

NONE of them? Not even going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, a country which was an international pariah for sheltering a purely criminal organization that had killed over 3000 people in one incident? Now, there are issues with how this was carried out, but that doesn't affect the legitimacy of the action.

Kosovo was the use of US force to assist the restoration of some measure of civil order, which is now functioning. How well is a different question.

The legality of the war in Iraq may well become an issue in impeachment or criminal proceedings, or both. The President's assertion that whenever he claims to be acting as Commander-in-Chief he is above the law and the Constitution is, of course, absurd. The truly frightening part is that he appears to genuinely believe he has such unbridled power. Some of the Administration's leaders believe that they are restoring the rightful power of the Presidency. I remember the days when the image of the Presedent as an Emperor was considered not just unacceptable, but horrifying (remember Nixon, 'the Imperial President?').; Posted by: furcat Posted on: 01/16/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use