aphy since customers could use Compuserve to download the material. Somm argued that he had taken all steps that he could have taken to stop the pornographic websites. Somm also argued Compuserve USA was ultimately responsible. Nevertheless, he was convicted and given a 2 year suspended sentence. This decision was overturned at appeal and a new German law was introduced that limited the liability of ISPs.
Yahoo! Inc v La Ligue Contre le Racisme et l'Antisemitisme
In February of 2002, a Parisian court dismissed the criminal charges against Yahoo!, Inc. and its former CEO, Tim Koogle, in the case of criminal prosecution involving the auction of Nazi memorabilia on Yahoo's auction site.
The potential extraterritorial application of the case and the fact that it appeared to open up the possibility of Internet providers being prosecuted anywhere in the world even if their activities were legal in their home countries meant that the case received intense media scrutiny.
The French court held that Yahoo had never tried to "justify war crimes [or] crimes against humanity."
The previous French court ruling prevented the sale of Nazi memorabilia on an auction website hosted by a US based web portal - Yahoo. Was this a breach of the right to free speech and was it unenforceable in US?
The court had held that it was technically possible for Yahoo to filter out French citizens access to the website and had also required Yahoo 英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】to prevent French citizens from viewing ‘revisionist’ Holocaust sites. Yahoo then put up a site warning French citizens. The French court required the message to be shown before you logged onto Yahoo – very difficult to enforce and police.
The biggest problem concerned jurisdiction. Where was the damage caused? In France or in the USA? In France, since the damage was suffered there or in the USA since the Yahoo server was based there and the restriction thus breaches the First Amendment right to Free Speech.
Which argument was more persuasive?
The 9th Circuit reversed the original decision of the 2001 District Court that enforcement of orders of a French court in the United States would violate the 1st amendment right of Yahoo. Subsequently, this decision was upheld by the San Francisco Appeals Court in January 2006. The US judges agreed that the US had jurisdiction but considered that Yahoo had not made out that the requirement to take down the offending material sufficiently endangered their 1st amendment rights.
Geocities cases.
Subscribers can set up their own websites and chatrooms. Much offensive material may be posted on these sites. A compromise agreement was arrived at that follows the Notice and Take Down system.
Notice and Take Down
Under US law, the ISP, once it becomes aware of the illegal activity must take steps to prevent access to the site, either through blocking or removal
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
论文编号：
org200806160939134253 
