EC
Yahoo Loses Appeal in Nazi Memorabilia Case
Federal court rules Yahoo not significantly harmed in case.
Juan Carlos Perez, IDG News Service
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Yahoo today lost a legal battle in its fight to make a French court's
order against the company unenforceable in the United States.
Advertisement
In 2000, a French court ruled that Yahoo had to make it impossible for residents of France to participate in Nazi memorabilia auctions and to access content of that nature. If it failed to comply, Yahoo would have to pay a fine.
That lawsuit in France was brought by the Union of Jewish Students in France (UEJF) and the League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA).
On Thursday, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, in a 99-page decision, dismissed Yahoo's most recent appeal.
Six judges rejected Yahoo's arguments, for two different reasons. Three judges ruled that California courts have no jurisdiction over the French organizations. Another three judges stated that the case isn't "ripe," meaning Yahoo hasn't suffered sufficient hardship stemming from the French court's decision.
"It is extremely unlikely that any penalty, if assessed, could ever
be enforced against Yahoo in the United States. Further, First Amendment
harm may not exist at all, given the possibility that Yahoo has now 'in
large measure' complied with the French court's orders through its voluntary
actions, unrelated to the orders," the decision reads.
Background
Originally, Yahoo, saying it would be impossible to filter out users from a specific country to keep them from participating in such auctions and viewing such content, decided to remove the Nazi items and content from its Web site.
However, Yahoo later sued UEJF and LICRA in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose to have the French court's verdict declared unenforceable in the United States, arguing that it violates the right to free speech.
The district court sided with Yahoo; the French parties, however, filed
an appeal with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco,
which they won. Yahoo then asked the appeals court to again hear the case
with 11 judges. That appeal was argued in March 2005, and the court's decision
was handed down today.
More on Ruling
If Yahoo hasn't "in large measure" complied with the French court's orders, there is some possibility that in further restricting access to French users, Yahoo might have to restrict access to U.S. users, the court said. "But this possibility is, at this point, highly speculative. This level of harm is not sufficient to overcome the factual uncertainty bearing on the legal question presented and thereby to render this suit ripe," the decision further reads.
Yahoo now has the option to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. An attorney representing Yahoo in the case didn't immediately return a call seeking comment.
"We were seeking dismissal, so this is a win for my clients, and we're very happy about that," said E. Randol Schoenberg, from the law firm Burris & Schoenberg in Los Angeles, who acted as lead counsel for UEJF and LICRA.
The court's decision on the issues of jurisdiction and ripeness were
right on target, Schoenberg said in an interview. "Just because someone
sues you in a foreign country doesn't mean you can come here and sue them,"
Schoenberg said.
ABC News
Court Dismisses Yahoo Free Speech Suit
Court Tosses Yahoo Suit That Questioned Liability for Selling Items
Illegal in Other Countries
By DAVID KRAVETS Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCOJan 12, 2006 A federal appeals court on Thursday skirted
answering whether Yahoo Inc. must pay a fine of about $15 million to a
Paris court for displaying Nazi memorabilia for sale in violation of French
law.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a federal lawsuit brought
by Yahoo in California challenging the fine levied five years ago for running
an auction site in which French users could buy and sell the memorabilia
banned in France.
Yahoo asked the U.S. court to rule that the judgment could not be collected
in the United States because it violated the company's free speech rights.
In a 99-page decision, the court left open the central question of whether
U.S.-based Internet service providers are liable for damages in foreign
courts for displaying content that is unlawful overseas but protected in
the United States.
The court said it was unlikely the French would ever enforce the judgment
and doubted Yahoo's free speech rights under U.S. law were violated.
Yahoo's French subsidiary, yahoo.fr, complies with French law, but
a judge there nonetheless ordered the Sunnyvale-based company to strip
Nazi paraphernalia from the portal's main site, Yahoo.com.
Yahoo eventually banned Nazi material as it began charging users to
make auction listings, saying it did not want to profit from such material.
But it continued to challenge the ruling, not in France but by filing a
lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Jose over the First Amendment issue.
A district judge in 2002 ruled in favor of Yahoo, saying the American
company was not liable for the judgment. That decision was set aside Thursday.
The appeals court did agree that U.S. companies, including Yahoo, could
turn to federal courts when overseas judgments inhibit speech protected
in the United States.
But the court came to no conclusion about what type of speech it would
consider shielding, doubting the presence of any First Amendment controversy
to decide in this particular case.
"We have no ruling on the underlying First Amendment issue, which made
this case so interesting in the first place," said Paul Schiff Berman,
who teaches cyberlaw at the University of Connecticut.
Yahoo did not immediately return calls for comment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court rules against Yahoo in Nazi speech case
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. Appeals court has thrown out a lawsuit
by Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), the world's largest media company,
which had sought to overturn a French court's decision barring the sale
of Nazi memorabilia on Yahoo's Web site.
ADVERTISEMENT
In a case that pitted freedom of speech rights enshrined under U.S. law against European anti-hate group statutes, the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling that had provided free speech protections to the U.S. company in its overseas operations.
The U.S. appeals court said that because Yahoo had complied "in large measure" with the French court's orders and barred the the sale of Nazi memorabilia from its site in France, Yahoo's free speech petition has become a moot issue.
"Unless and until Yahoo! changes its policy again, and thereby more clearly violates the French court's orders, it is unclear how much is now actually in dispute," the decision by a majority of the appeal court's 11 judges who heard the case.
A Yahoo spokesman said the Sunnyvale, California-based company was aware of the decision and formulating a response.
(Additional reporting by Jim Christie in San Francisco)
Appellate Court Refuses To Protect Yahoo From French Fine
POSTED: 3:31 pm PST January 12, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO -- A federal appeals court on Thursday skirted answering
whether Yahoo Inc. was liable to pay a fine of about $15 million to a Paris
court for displaying Nazi memorabilia for sale in violation of French law.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a federal lawsuit brought by Yahoo in California challenging the fine levied five years ago for allowing French users to buy and sell the memorabilia banned in France.
Yahoo asked the court to rule that the judgment could not be collected because it violated the company's free speech rights in the United States.
In a 99-page decision, the court left open the central question of whether U.S.-based Internet service providers are liable for damages in foreign courts for displaying content that is unlawful overseas but protected in the United States.
The court said it was unlikely the French would ever enforce the judgment, and doubted Yahoo's free speech rights under U.S. law were violated.
Yahoo's French subsidiary, yahoo.fr, complies with French law, but a judge there ordered the Sunnyvale-based company to strip Nazi paraphernalia from the portal's most popular site. Yahoo did not appeal the French order, but filed suit in U.S. District Court in San Jose over the First Amendment issue.
A San Jose federal judge in 2002 ruled in favor of Yahoo, saying the
American company was not liable for the judgment. That decision that was
set aside Thursday.
In Closely Watched Case, 9th Circuit Rejects Yahoo's Free Speech Argument
Case deals with unfamiliar ground involving Internet commerce's reach
and
disparities among different countries' laws
Pam Smith
The Recorder
01-13-2006
Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints &
Permissions
Yahoo's attempt to argue the First Amendment against a court order
in France
was thwarted by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday,
but over
procedural grounds rather than the Sunnyvale company's closely watched
constitutional argument.
The French court had threatened the Internet portal with financial
penalties
unless it took measures to stop people in France from using Yahoo to
view
auction listings for Nazi artifacts, or Nazi-apologist Web sites. Yahoos
French subsidiary Web site has basically cut off such access, but Yahoos
U.S. site can still be viewed by Internet users in France. The Silicon
Valley parent company has argued that restricting the objectionable
content
from French viewers who go to its U.S. site would be technically difficult
and overly restrictive.
The case has been watched intently because it deals with unfamiliar
legal
ground that involves both the global reach of Internet commerce and
disparities in different countries' laws. Lawyers from the American
Civil
Liberties Union and for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce both filed amici
curiae
briefs. "The issue that it presents is, when you have a world in which
all
the nations are participants in a worldwide network, what standards
should
be applied?" said Kurt Opsahl, a staff attorney at the San Francisco-based
Electronic Frontier Foundation who has followed the case.
It was a close call for E. Randol Schoenberg, a lawyer for the French
groups, who persuaded the 9th Circuit to throw out the case, with two
arguments that combined for success.
At the en banc hearing, he only persuaded three of the 11 judges to
agree
with his jurisdiction argument, which he'd seen as the focus of the
case.
But three other judges backed his argument that the case wasn't ripe
enough
to be ruled on. Taken together, the six votes were enough to reverse
an
earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern
District of California.
Yahoo was sued in France in 2000 by two groups citing the anti-Nazi
laws.
Later that year, a French court ordered the Internet portal to restrict
access for its French customers -- even if it meant reconfiguring its
California-based servers -- and gave it three months to do so before
a daily
100,000 franc penalty would kick in.
Yahoo wanted a U.S. judge to declare that the French court's orders
would
not be recognizable or enforceable here, and at the trial level, it
succeeded. The company sued La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme
and L'Union des Etudiants Juifs de France, and Fogel ruled that the
First
Amendment would preclude enforcement of the foreign orders in the U.S.
Among the 9th Circuit judges, the case appears to have been hotly debated.
On Thursday, three of them penned separate concurring opinions, and
another
five signed onto a partial dissent bemoaning the outcome. Even the
six who
agreed that the case should be dismissed without prejudice split on
the
reasoning.
DEVIL IN THE DETAILS
Three judges said the case was too premature and abstract. To prevent
enforcement in the U.S., a foreign judgment must be "repugnant to public
policy," and the case isn't in any shape to tell if the French orders
meet
that requirement, Judge William Fletcher wrote.
"Yahoo has chosen not to ask the French court" whether unrelated changes
in
its policies -- like prohibiting auction listings that offer items
associated with primarily violent or hateful groups -- have indirectly
satisfied the foreign order, Fletcher wrote. "Instead, it has chosen
to come
home to ask for a declaratory judgment that the French court's orders
--
whatever they may or may not require, and whatever First Amendment
questions
they may or may not present -- are unenforceable in the United States."
While it's possible that Yahoo could be forced to restrict its access
to its
American users, that possibility is, at this point, "highly speculative,"
Fletcher wrote, and therefore not urgent enough. Combined with the
uncertainty of the legal question, Fletcher concluded, the case couldn't
overcome the ripeness hurdle. (If the French court's orders more explicitly
required Yahoo to block access to its U.S. users, he made clear that
"this
would be a different and much easier case.")
The three other judges that agreed the case should be thrown out each
wrote
a separate concurrence concluding that Yahoo shouldn't have been able
to sue
the French defendant groups in California. "The Supreme Court has never
approved such a radical extension of personal jurisdiction," Judge
Diarmuid
O'Scannlain wrote in one of them, adding that the majority had essentially
held that a foreign party subjects itself to a suit in the U.S. simply
"by
litigating a bona fide claim in a foreign court and receiving a favorable
judgment."
The five judges who partially dissented all but accused the majority
of
punting.
"If the majority's application of the First Amendment in the global
Internet
context in this case is to become the standard ... then it should be
adopted
(or not) after full consideration of the constitutional merits, not
as a
justification for avoiding the issue altogether as not ripe," Judge
Raymond
Fisher wrote.
If some judges feel Yahoo may be able to follow the foreign orders
without
restricting its American customers, the trial court can resolve those
questions with more fact-finding, Fisher wrote. But that aside, Fisher
said,
it's clear the orders are too vague and therefore unconstitutional
on their
face. "Legions of cases permit First Amendment challenges to governmental
actions or decrees that on their face are vague, overbroad and threaten
to
chill protected speech," Fisher wrote. "Indeed, the sweeping [order]
here
presents just such a paradigmatic case."
A statement from Yahoo did not say if the company would appeal to the
U.S.
Supreme Court. But the company said it was pleased that the ruling
indicated
U.S. courts can have jurisdiction if a foreign plaintiff tries to enforce
foreign orders of "censor-ship" on U.S. Web sites. "Based on today's
ruling,
Yahoo believes that free speech rights would prevail," the statement
said.
Schoenberg, who represented the French groups at oral argument, emphasized
that such an outcome wouldn't be assured. "I'm willing to bet that
not every
circuit will agree with the ruling on personal jurisdiction."
The case is Yahoo v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et LAntisemitisme,
06
C.D.O.S. 360.
Court dismisses Yahoo's free speech lawsuit
By Declan McCullagh, Special to ZDNet
13 January 2006 04:03 PM
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday ducked the question of
whether a
French court order censoring Nazi-related materials can apply to Yahoo's
US-based Web site.
In a case that pits European restrictions on "hate speech" against the
values of free expression enshrined by the United States' First Amendment,
a
slender 6-5 majority of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
Yahoo's case involving the online display of Nazi-related books, posts
and
memorabilia.
"Unless and until Yahoo changes its policy again, and thereby more clearly
violates the French court's orders, it is unclear how much is now actually
in dispute," one group of judges wrote. Also, those judges said, it's
"extremely unlikely" that any penalty could be assessed against Yahoo's
US
operations.
In an unusual twist, the 11-judge panel fractured into multiple factions,
some of which said the case should be dismissed on technicalities or
because
it was too preliminary, and others who said it was an easy call because
the
French court order is clearly unenforceable under the US Constitution.
Yahoo filed the suit in December 2000 in an effort to clear up whether
a US
company was required to rework its Web site to comply with a French
court
order. In April of that year, the Paris-based International League
against
Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) took the Web portal to court to stop
sales
of Nazi paraphernalia to French citizens on its auction site. French
law
prohibits the sale or exhibition of objects associated with racism.
A French court agreed with LICRA. It required Yahoo to make it "impossible"
for French citizens to connect to a Yahoo Web site with messages relating
to
Nazi objects, or ones that displayed excerpts from Adolf Hitler's "Mein
Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," or messages that
contested
Nazi crimes.
But Yahoo won its initial court battle in the US. A federal district
judge
ruled in November 2001 that "although France has the sovereign right
to
regulate what speech is permissible in France, this court may not enforce
a
foreign order that violates the protections of the United States
Constitution."
In a dissent on Thursday, a minority of 9th Circuit judges echoed that
argument. "Censoring speech we find repugnant does not comport with
our
cherished First Amendment," the dissent said. "We should not allow
a foreign
court order to be used as leverage to quash constitutionally protected
speech by denying the United States-based target an adjudication of
its
constitutional rights in federal court."
Joel Reidenberg, a professor of law at Fordham University who wrote
a law
review article on the topic, said he was alarmed that a majority of
the 9th
Circuit found sufficient jurisdictional grounds existed to consider
the
case.
"This is a radical and troubling expansion of U.S. jurisdiction that
may put
US companies at risk abroad," Reidenberg said in e-mail. "In essence,
the
majority would allow any US company that loses a lawsuit abroad to
bring the
suit back to the US for a second bite at the apple." Now, he said,
foreign
companies that lose in the US might take their dispute back to a more
friendly court at home.
The US case does not involve Yahoo's French subsidiary, which has complied
with French law.
C'est une premire juridique dans la controverse sur la libert
d'expression qui agite le Web: une cour d'appel de Californie a admis
qu'un tribunal franais pouvait interdire la vente sur le Net de
croix gammes ou d'insignes de SS. Elle a ainsi conclu, jeudi, le
diffrend entre Yahoo! et les associations franaises, au terme de
plusieurs annes de controverse fertile en rebondissements.
En 2000, le tribunal de Paris avait enjoint ce serveur, log en
Californie, de supprimer toute vente d'objets nazis, dans les trois
mois sous astreinte de 15 000 euros par jour. Tout en tranant des
pieds, Yahoo! a renonc faire appel. En 2001, le serveur a adopt
un code de conduite proscrivant la mise aux enchres ou la promotion
d'objets associs Lj des groupes adoptant de positions raciales
haineuses et violentes. Cela n'a pas empch les magistrats
amricains de retrouver sur le site, des annes plus tard, des
timbres ou monnaies frappes de la croix gamme, des exemplaires de
Mein Kampf ou encore des forums antismites et ngationnistes.
Paralllement, la socit a lanc une action en Californie, en
estimant que ce jugement violait la libert d'expression, consacre
par le Premier amendement. Yahoo! assurait que cette interdiction,
ne
pouvant se limiter la France, affecterait invitablement sa
clientle amricaine. Le serveur disait aussi redouter d'avoir
verser des indemnisations massives. Dans un premier temps, le
tribunal de San Jose lui a donn raison. Finalement, ce jugement est
aujourd'hui renvers par la cour d'appel, qui a jug vague
l'argumentaire de Yahoo!, d'autant que rien n'indique que les
indemnisations lui soient rclames. Signe que ce dbat sur la
libert et le Net reste vif aux Etats-Unis, cette dcision a t
rendue l'arrach, une majorit d'une voix. Au-del des points de
procdure soulevs dans cet arrt de plus de cent pages, c'est une
ouverture sur le fond, estime Me Randol Schoenberg, qui
reprsentait la LICRA (Ligue contre le racisme et l'antismitisme)
et
l'Union des tudiants juifs de France. Pour la premire fois
en
effet, explique Me Philippe Schmidt, avocat et vice-prsident de la
LICRA, les magistrats amricains abordent le fond du problme, en
refusant de considrer que le Premier amendement s'applique
automatiquement en dehors des Etats-Unis.
------ End of Forwarded Message
Court dismisses Yahoo's free speech lawsuit
By Declan McCullagh, Special to ZDNet
13 January 2006 04:03 PM
A divided federal appeals court on Thursday ducked the question of
whether a
French court order censoring Nazi-related materials can apply to Yahoo's
US-based Web site.
In a case that pits European restrictions on "hate speech" against the
values of free expression enshrined by the United States' First Amendment,
a
slender 6-5 majority of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
Yahoo's case involving the online display of Nazi-related books, posts
and
memorabilia.
"Unless and until Yahoo changes its policy again, and thereby more clearly
violates the French court's orders, it is unclear how much is now actually
in dispute," one group of judges wrote. Also, those judges said, it's
"extremely unlikely" that any penalty could be assessed against Yahoo's
US
operations.
In an unusual twist, the 11-judge panel fractured into multiple factions,
some of which said the case should be dismissed on technicalities or
because
it was too preliminary, and others who said it was an easy call because
the
French court order is clearly unenforceable under the US Constitution.
Yahoo filed the suit in December 2000 in an effort to clear up whether
a US
company was required to rework its Web site to comply with a French
court
order. In April of that year, the Paris-based International League
against
Racism and Anti-Semitism (LICRA) took the Web portal to court to stop
sales
of Nazi paraphernalia to French citizens on its auction site. French
law
prohibits the sale or exhibition of objects associated with racism.
A French court agreed with LICRA. It required Yahoo to make it "impossible"
for French citizens to connect to a Yahoo Web site with messages relating
to
Nazi objects, or ones that displayed excerpts from Adolf Hitler's "Mein
Kampf" and "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," or messages that
contested
Nazi crimes.
But Yahoo won its initial court battle in the US. A federal district
judge
ruled in November 2001 that "although France has the sovereign right
to
regulate what speech is permissible in France, this court may not enforce
a
foreign order that violates the protections of the United States
Constitution."
In a dissent on Thursday, a minority of 9th Circuit judges echoed that
argument. "Censoring speech we find repugnant does not comport with
our
cherished First Amendment," the dissent said. "We should not allow
a foreign
court order to be used as leverage to quash constitutionally protected
speech by denying the United States-based target an adjudication of
its
constitutional rights in federal court."
Joel Reidenberg, a professor of law at Fordham University who wrote
a law
review article on the topic, said he was alarmed that a majority of
the 9th
Circuit found sufficient jurisdictional grounds existed to consider
the
case.
"This is a radical and troubling expansion of U.S. jurisdiction that
may put
US companies at risk abroad," Reidenberg said in e-mail. "In essence,
the
majority would allow any US company that loses a lawsuit abroad to
bring the
suit back to the US for a second bite at the apple." Now, he said,
foreign
companies that lose in the US might take their dispute back to a more
friendly court at home.
The US case does not involve Yahoo's French subsidiary, which has complied
with French law.
High-Tech
13/01/2006
Yahoo condamn se soumettre la justice franaise
LExpansion.com
Point final dans la procdure qui oppose depuis cinq ans Yahoo deux
associations franaises, la Licra et l'Union des tudiants juifs de
France.
La cour californienne a finalement dbout la firme amricaine qui
se
retranchait derrire le 1er amendement de la constitution amricaine.
Au terme de cinq annes de procdure rebondissements, le gant amricain
Yahoo vient d'tre une nouvelle fois mis en chec par la justice amricaine
dans l'affaire lie la vente d'objets nazis. Le groupe a en effet
t
dbout par une cour d'appel californienne sur sa plainte demandant
l'invalidation d'une dcision de justice franaise lui interdisant
la mise
aux enchres d'objets nazis.
-- PUBLICITE --
Rsum des pisodes prcdents. En mai 2000, suite la plainte
dpose
pour faire interdire la vente en ligne d'objets nazis par la Ligue
contre le
racisme et l'antismitisme (Licra) et l'Union des tudiants juifs de
France
(UEJF), le tribunal de grande instance de Paris ordonne Yahoo de
dtruire
dans un dlai de trois mois tous les messages lis ces transactions
sur
son sites d'enchres hberg en Californie et ce, sous astreinte de
100.000
francs (15.000 euros) par jour. Yahoo s'excute de mauvaise grce et
avec un
certain retard. Il annonce dbut 2001 adopter une politique beaucoup
plus
restrictive l'gard de ce type d'objet, et proscrit la mise aux enchres
ou la promotion d'objets associs ʈ des groupes adoptant des positions
raciales haineuses ou violentes. Un vu pieux. Les magistrats amricains
constateront quelques annes plus tard sur le site la prsence d'objets
divers lis l'poque nazi et la vitalit de divers forums antismites
et
ngationnistes. Pour autant, la firme amricaine, qui n'a visiblement
pas
apprci de se voir rappeler l'ordre par la justice franaise, a
entam en
dcembre 2000 une procdure auprs d'un tribunal californien pour dclarer
le jugement franais inapplicable aux Etats-Unis en invoquant le premier
amendement de la Constitution amricaine sur la libert d'expression.
Ce
tribunal lui donne raison.
Mais l'affaire ne s'arrte pas l. En aot 2004, la cour d'appel de
la 9me
circonscription amricaine qui couvre l'ouest des Etats-Unis casse
ce
jugement sur la forme. Selon elle, la cour californienne aurait d
attendre
que la Licra et l'UEJF soumettent leur cas aux Etats-Unis pour contraindre
Yahoo payer l'amende. La procdure est une nouvelle fois relance
et, en
fvrier 2005, la cour d'appel californienne accepte de rexaminer l'ensemble
du dossier sur le fond. C'est cet examen qui va tre fatal Yahoo.
La cour
d'appel a, en effet, jug vague les arguments prsents par Yahoo
qui
prtendait d'une part que cette interdiction, ne pouvant se limiter
la
France, affecterait invitablement sa clientle amricaine et d'autre
part,
redoutait avoir verser des indemnisations massives. Les juges ont
refus
de dclarer inapplicable aux Etats-Unis une dcision prise par un tribunal
de juridiction franaise. Me Philippe Schmidt, avocat et vice-prsident
de
la Licra s'est flicit de cette dcision en estimant que les juges
amricains abordaient pour la premire fois le fonds du problme,
en
refusant de considrer que le Premier amendement s'applique automatiquement
en-dehors des Etats-Unis.
LExpansion.com
OBJETS NAZIS
Revers pour Yahoo!
aux Etats-Unis
NOUVELOBS.COM | 13.01.06 | 18:33
Une cour d'appel estime que le jugement franais sur la vente aux enchres
d'objets nazis est applicable sur le territoire amricain.
Une cour d'appel amricaine a inflig jeudi 12 janvier un chec au
gant de
l'internet Yahoo! dans son diffrend judiciaire avec deux associations
franaises, en refusant de dclarer inapplicable aux Etats-Unis une
dcision
d'un tribunal parisien.
Cette affaire, qui remonte plus de cinq ans, a commenc lorsque la
Ligue
contre le racisme et l'antismitisme (Licra) et l'Union des tudiants
juifs
de France (UEJF) ont port plainte contre Yahoo! pour faire interdire
la
vente en ligne sur son site amricain d'objets nazis, prohibe en France.
En mai 2000, le tribunal de grande instance de Paris avait ordonn
Yahoo!
de dtruire dans les trois mois tous les messages concernant la vente
d'objets nazis sur son site d'enchres hberg en Californie, et ce
sous
astreinte de 100.000 francs (15.000 euros) par jour.
Yahoo! ne s'tait excut qu'avec retard et avait demand en dcembre
2000
un tribunal d'instance de San Francisco de dclarer le jugement franais
inapplicable aux Etats-Unis, en invoquant le premier amendement de
la
Constitution amricaine qui garantit la libert d'expression.
Argumentaire "vague"
Le tribunal californien avait donn raison Yahoo! mais en aot 2004,
la
cour d'appel de la 9e circonscription judiciaire, qui couvre l'ouest
des
Etats-Unis, a cass ce jugement pour des raisons de forme, estimant
qu'il
tait prmatur.
Selon la juridiction, ce tribunal aurait d attendre que la Licra et
l'UEJF
prsentent leur cas aux Etats-Unis pour contraindre l'entreprise
payer
l'amende.
Jeudi, la Cour d'appel, dans une dcision de six de ses juges contre
cinq, a
rejet, cette fois sur le fond, une nouvelle demande de Yahoo! de dclarer
la dcision franaise inapplicable, estimant que celle-ci ne violait
pas les
droits de Yahoo! relatifs la libert d'expression et que l'argumentaire
de
l'entreprise tait "vague".
Les juges ont toutefois dit douter que la France demande aujourd'hui
l'excution d'un jugement vieux de cinq ans et demi, dont l'amende
cumule
pourrait atteindre aprs cette priode des millions de dollars.
vendredi 13 janvier 2006, 19h25
Yahoo nouveau dbout dans l'affaire des enchres nazies
Une cour d'appel amricaine a refus d'accorder Yahoo la protection
du
Premier Amendement, garantissant la libert d'expression. Pas cause
de
questions de fond, mais simplement parce qu'il n'est pas poursuivi
aux
tats-Unis par la justice franaise.
Est-ce la find'un dbatjuridiquequi dure depuis plus de cinq ans?
Une
cour d'appel amricaine vient de dbouter Yahoo Incdans l'affaire
des
enchres nazies proposes sur son portail amricain. Les juges se sont
toutefois montrs trs diviss sur ce cas, o la question de la libert
d'expression a t beaucoup discute.
Rappel des faits: en 2000, le groupe amricainest condamnpar le tribunal
de grande instance de Paris, bloquer l'accs des internautes franais
ces contenus illicites, interdits la vente dans l'Hexagone. Il avait
trois
mois pour se conformer cette dcision, sous astreinte d'une amende
de
15.000 euros par jour de retard.
Yahoo Francea excutcette dcision trs rapidement, en supprimant
tout
contenu illicite de ses pages et les liens menant vers son portail
amricain.
Mais la question s'est ensuite pose de savoir si la dcision d'un juge
franais pouvaits'appliquer aussi la maison mre, Yahoo Inc, soumise
elle
au droit amricain.
Pas de demande des plaignants aux tats-Unis
Le groupe amricaina donccherch se prmunir contre toute tentative
d'incursion de la justice franaise sur son territoire. Cardu faitde
l'astreinte, les deux plaignants, la Ligue internationale contre le
racisme
et l'antismitisme (Licra) et l'Union des tudiants juifs de France
(UEJF),
auraient pu rclamer jusqu' 15 millions de dollars, selon les estimations.
En 2001, Yahoo Inc a donc demand la justice amricaine une injonction
prliminaire, dclarant la dcision du TGI de Paris non applicable
sur le
sol amricain.Enrclamant la protection du Premier Amendement de
la
Constitution, qui garantit la libert d'expression. Il a obtenu gain
cause
en premire instance, avant que cette dcision ne soit casse en appel
en
2004.
C'est cette dcision qui vient d'tre nouveau confirme par la cour
du 9e
"circuit" de San Francisco (dernier recours avant la Cour suprme).
six
voix contre cinq, les juges ont estim que la demande de Yahoo tait
irrecevable, car ni la Licra, ni l'UEJF n'ont amen le litige devant
une
juridiction amricaine.
moins que Yahoo ne change nouveau sa politique, et ainsi viole
de faon
plus vidente la dcision de justice franaise, il est difficile de
dire
actuellement ce qui est en jeu, crivent-ils. Selon eux, il est par
ailleurs trs peu probable que des amendes puissent tre infliges
au groupe
amricain. D'o le refus d'accder la demande de Yahoo.
Avec Declan McCullagh, pour CNET News.com
AFFAIRE YAHOO!
"Le triomphe du droit franais
sur le plan international"
NOUVELOBS.COM | 13.01.06 | 15:46
par Grard Haas,
avocat la Cour,
docteur en droit.
Dans cette "affaire Yahoo", quel a t le cheminement juridique qui
a amen
une plainte dpose par des associations franaises provoquer une
dcision
de la Cour d'Appel de la 9 circonscription judiciaire aux Etats-Unis?
- Tout a commenc en mai 2000 lorsque lUEJF a fait constater par huissier
que sur le site yahoo.com accessible aux internautes franais, figurait
une
page de vente aux enchres proposant la vente des objets nazis ;
faits
rprhensibles pnalement en droit franais.
En effet, la simple visualisation en France de tels objets constitue
une
violation de larticle R. 645-1 du Code Pnal et donc un trouble
lordre
public interne franais.
LUEJF et la LICRA ont alors saisi le Tribunal de Grande Instance de
Paris
en rfr pour obtenir la fermeture de ce site.
Le 22 mai 2000 le TGI de Paris a ainsi ordonn Yahoo Inc. de: "prendre
toutes les mesures de nature dissuader et rendre impossible toute
consultation sur Yahoo.com du service de ventes aux enchres d'objets
nazis
et de tout autre site ou service qui constituent une apologie du nazisme
ou
une contestation des crimes nazis".
Yahoo Inc.
a ensuite saisi la Cour de District de San Jos (Californie) qui a
considr
dans son jugement du 7 novembre 2001 que "bien que la France ait le
droit
souverain de contrler le type dexpression autorise sur son territoire,
cette cour ne pourrait appliquer une ordonnance trangre qui viole
la
Constitution des Etats-Unis en empchant la pratique d'une expression
protge lintrieur de nos frontires".
Dans le prolongement de ce jugement, la Cour dappel du 9me District
de
Californie a annul ce premier jugement pour des questions de procdure
par
un arrt du 23 aot 2004. En effet, elle a considr que "la France
est dans
son droit, comme nation souveraine, de voter des lois contre la diffusion
de
contenus racistes et nazi en rponse aux terribles agissements des
armes
Nazies durant la Seconde guerre mondiale. De mme, la LICRA et lUEJF
sont
dans leur droit de saisir la justice en France lencontre de Yahoo!
afin
de faire sanctionner les violations aux lois franaises".
Les magistrats amricains estimaient donc que Yahoo Inc, ne pouvait
pas,
la suite de la dcision franaise, saisir les juridictions amricaines
afin
de faire constater lincompatibilit du jugement franais avec les
principes
de la libert dexpression fixs par le Premier amendement.
La dernire dcision rendue le 12 janvier 2006 par la Cour dappel
du 9me
district de Californie a confirm sa position en rejetant la demande
de
Yahoo visant dclarer la dcision franaise inapplicable estimant
que
celle-ci ne violait pas les droits de Yahoo relatifs la libert
dexpression protg par le 1er amendement de la Constitution amricaine.
La question de lapplication de la loi franaise aux Etats-Unis demeure
donc
en suspens tant que lUEJF et la LICRA nauront pas demand outre-Atlantique
lexcution de lordonnance franaise du 22 mai 2000.
Existe-t-il des prcdents en matire de droit international et si
non, que
va entraner cette dcision?
- L'exequatur (procdure qui permet de faire dclarer excutoire dans
un
Etat un jugement ou une dcision arbitrale ou autre rendu dans un autre)
des
jugements rendus l'tranger pose des questions de droit international
dlicates et touche la souverainet des Etats.
En matire dInternet, il semble que cette affaire soit une premire.
Il
faut savoir quil nexiste aucune convention portant sur lexcution
des
jugements entre la France et les Etats-Unis.
En tout tat de cause, la dcision de la Cour dappel de Californie
confirme
quune socit amricaine diffusant des contenus ngationnistes sur
la Toile
devra respecter sur le territoire franais la loi franaise et devra
prendre
toute mesure pour supprimer laccs ces contenus interdits aux citoyens
de
lhexagone alors mme que cette diffusion est autorise aux Etats-Unis.
Laffaire Yahoo rvle donc le triomphe du droit franais et de ses
valeurs
les plus fondamentales sur le plan international. Cette dcision du
juge
amricain, malgr le sacro-saint 1er amendement de la Constitution
amricaine, est une victoire pour tous les dfenseurs des droits de
lHomme
De plus, en rgle gnrale, le juge amricain accorde relativement
facilement lexequatur aux jugements franais aprs avoir vrifi la
rgularit de ces jugements au regard du droit amricain (jugement
dfinitif, tribunal impartial, absence de fraude, objet de laction
conforme
lordre public de lEtat).
Pour les autres Etats, il convient de distinguer selon que ceux-ci
ont t
rendus par un tat membre de l'Union Europenne ou un tat tiers, tant
prcis quune convention internationale a t conclue entre les tats
membres de l'Union Europenne, simplifiant considrablement les conditions
d'octroi de l'exequatur. Par ailleurs, il convient de vrifier au cas
par
cas, quels accords on t conclus (bilatraux ou multilatraux) lorsquil
sagit dEtats-Tiers.
Aujourd'hui les sites de ventes sur Internet s'appuient sur les lgislations
nationales du pays o ils sont implants. Cette dcision de justice
ouvre-t-elle la voie des changements dans ce domaine?
- Non, en effet, les principaux changements tiennent la nature mme
de
lInternet, rseau mondial transfrontalier.
Si les responsables des sites de vente sur lInternet se voient appliquer
normalement la lgislation du pays dans lequel ils sont tablis, toute
diffusion sur Internet, entrane de facto lapplication des lgislations
des
pays o le contenu est accessible en dautres termes, partout dans
le
monde.
Or, il est possible dobserver une pratique quasi constante dans la
plupart
des pays: lorsquun Tribunal connat dune affaire ayant lInternet
comme
moyen du dommage, il se dclarera quasi systmatiquement comptent
et
refusera gnralement dappliquer une autre loi que la sienne.
Do limportance daffaires comme celle-ci qui contribuent "briser"
les
carcans poss par les souverainets nationales; ces dernires devant
seffacer lorsque les droits de lHomme sont en jeu.
Nous assistons ici une lutte entre la rgulation des contenus illicites
sur le rseau et la libert dexpression quasi absolue impose par
le
premier amendement de la Constitution amricaine.
La vraie question est l: les Etats-Unis peuvent-ils impunment dicter
leur
loi sur le rseau et porter atteintes aux droits de lhomme en imposant
une
vison absolutiste de la libert dexpression ?
Cette dcision rappelle aussi aux plus sceptiques que lInternet nest
pas
une zone de non droit pour les particuliers, les entreprises, mais
galement
pour les Etats !
Propos recueillis par Solne Cordier
(le vendredi 13 janvier 2006)
Enchres nazies : Yahoo dbout par la justice amricaine
Une cour d'appel de Californie a rejet une plainte de Yahoo Inc., qui
demandait l'invalidation d'une dcision d'un tribunal franais lui
interdisant de mettre aux enchres des objets de l'poque nazie.
parVincent NOCE
LIBERATION.FR:vendredi 13 janvier 2006-18:37
C'est une premire juridique dans la controverse sur la libert
d'expression qui agite le Web: une cour d'appel de Californie a admis
qu'un
tribunal franais pouvait interdire la vente sur le Net de croix gammes
ou
d'insignes de SS. Elle a ainsi conclu, jeudi, le diffrend entre Yahoo!
et
les associations franaises, au terme de plusieurs annes de controverse
fertile en rebondissements.
En 2000, le tribunal de grande instance de Paris avait enjoint au site
de
supprimer toute vente d'objets nazis de son serveur d'enchres franais,
log en Californie, dans les trois mois sous astreinte de 15.000 euros
par
jour. Tout en tranant des pieds, Yahoo! a renonc faire appel. En
2001,
il a adopt un code de conduite proscrivant la mise aux enchres ou
la
promotion d'objets associs Lj des groupes adoptant de positions raciales
haineuses et violentes. Cela n'a pas empch les magistrats amricains
de
retrouver sur le site, des annes plus tard, des timbres ou monnaies
frappes de la croix gamme, des exemplaires de Mein Kampf ou encore
des
forums antismites et ngationnistes.
Paralllement, la socit a lanc une action en Californie, en estimant
que
le jugement de 2000 violait la libert d'expression, consacre par
le
Premier amendement de la consitution amricaine. Car Yahoo! assurait
que
cette interdiction, ne pouvant se limiter la France, affecterait
invitablement sa clientle amricaine. Le serveur disait aussi redouter
d'avoir verser des indemnisations massives. Dans un premier temps,
le
tribunal de San Jose lui a donn raison. Finalement, ce jugement est
aujourd'hui renvers sur le fond par la cour d'appel, qui a jug
vague
l'argumentaire de Yahoo!, d'autant que rien n'indique que les indemnisations
lui soient rclames. Signe que ce dbat sur la libert et le Net reste
vif
aux Etats-Unis, cette dcision a t rendue l'arrach, une majorit
d'une voix.
Au-del des points de procdure soulevs dans cet arrt de plus de cent
pages, c'est une ouverture sur le fond, estime Me Randol Schoenberg,
qui
reprsentait la LICRA (Ligue contre le racisme et l'antismitisme)
et
l'Union des tudiants juifs de France. Pour la premire fois en effet,
explique Me Philippe Schmidt, avocat et vice-prsident de la LICRA,
les
magistrats amricains abordent le fond du problme, en refusant de
considrer que le Premier amendement s'applique automatiquement en
dehors
des Etats-Unis.
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP)
13 Janvier 2006 7h48
Echec pour Yahoo! dans son diffrend avec deux associations franaises
Une cour d'appel amricaine a inflig jeudi un chec au gant de l'internet
Yahoo! dans son diffrend judiciaire avec deux associations franaises,
en
refusant de dclarer inapplicable aux Etats-Unis une dcision d'un
tribunal
parisien.
Cette affaire, qui remonte plus de cinq ans, a commenc lorsque la
Ligue
contre le racisme et l'antismitisme (Licra) et l'Union des tudiants
juifs
de France (UEJF) ont port plainte contre Yahoo! pour faire interdire
la
vente en ligne sur son site amricain d'objets nazis, prohibe en France.
En mai 2000, le tribunal de grande instance de Paris avait ordonn Yahoo!
de dtruire dans les trois mois tous les messages concernant la vente
d'objets nazis sur son site d'enchres hberg en Californie, et ce
sous
astreinte de 100.000 francs (15.000 euros) par jour.
Yahoo! ne s'tait excut qu'avec retard et avait demand en dcembre
2000
un tribunal d'instance de San Francisco de dclarer le jugement
franais
inapplicable aux Etats-Unis, en invoquant le premier amendement de
la
Constitution amricaine qui garantit la libert d'expression.
Le tribunal californien avait donn raison Yahoo! mais en aot 2004,
la
cour d'appel de la 9e circonscription judiciaire, qui couvre l'ouest
des
Etats-Unis, a cass ce jugement pour des raisons de forme, estimant
qu'il
tait prmatur.
Selon la juridiction, ce tribunal aurait d attendre que la Licra et
l'UEJF
prsentent leur cas aux Etats-Unis pour contraindre l'entreprise payer
l'amende.
Jeudi, la Cour d'appel, dans une dcision de six de ses juges contre
cinq, a
rejet, cette fois sur le fond, une nouvelle demande de Yahoo! de dclarer
la dcision franaise inapplicable, estimant que celle-ci ne violait
pas les
droits de Yahoo! relatifs la libert d'expression et que l'argumentaire
de l'entreprise tait "vague".
Les juges ont toutefois dit douter que la France demande aujourd'hui
l'excution d'un jugement vieux de cinq ans et demi, dont l'amende
cumule
pourrait atteindre aprs cette priode des millions de dollars.
2006 AFP : Tous droits rservs.