were removed. The two-day blocking was heavily criticized both within Turkey and abroad and
likened to “closing a library because of a single
book that was found to be improper.” 29
Hate speech
European states are also increasingly taking
action against online hate speech, applying their
offline policies to the Internet. Some efforts raise
important issues such as the jurisdiction over
material on the Internet. For example, a French
court in 2000 ruled that U.S.-based Yahoo! Inc. is
liable under French law for allowing the people of
France access to auction sites that include Nazi
memorabilia and demanded that Yahoo! must
ensure that this content is impossible to access
from France or face fines. 30 The case was
brought by two French not-for-profit organizations 31 dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism.
32
Yahoo! brought suit in a U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, claiming that the French court’s ruling
was unenforceable in the United States. The U.S.
court ruled in Yahoo!’s favor in November 2001,
but in 2004 a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned the ruling by the lower
court on the grounds that it “did not have sufficient jurisdiction over the French parties.” 33 After
reconsidering the decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals dismissed Yahoo!’s case in
January 2006 despite claiming jurisdiction over
the matter because Yahoo! had already removed
the materials and, therefore, the requirement to
block would not have done any actual First
Amendment harm. 34
Similarly, the German Federal Court of
Justice ruled in December 2000 that material glorifying the Nazis and denying the Holocaust must
be censored as per German law, regardless of
where it is hosted, based on a case involving an
Australian-based Holocaust revisionist who was
using the Internet to spread his message denying
the atrocities of World War II. 35 In another case,
seventy-eight ISPs in Nordrhein-Westfalen were
ordered to block access to two foreign Web sites
in 2002 that contained neo-Nazi content. 36 The
same regional government of Düsseldorf also
took an anti-censorship activist to court for posting hyperlinks on his Web site to radical rightwing
content that had been censored. 37
Other European countries also have laws
against Holocaust denial and ban material that
promotes racial hatred. These have been “harmonized” in a protocol to the Council of Europe’s
cybercrime treaty, which requires that “any written material, any image, or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, color, descent or national or
ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext
for any of these factors” and “material which
denies, minimizes, approves of or justifies crimes
of genocide or crimes against humanity” must be
made illegal by the signatories. 38 As with all illegal content, once brought to their attention, ISPs
must either take down or block the relevant Web
sites depending on whether the sites are hosted
within the country or abroad.
Defamation
Member states of the EU have expressed the
need for a simplified framework to be applied
with respect to rules concerning defamation by
media or publications via the Internet and other
electronic networks. The general principle in
cases of defamation concerning the media—that
the law of the country where the defamed person
lives is applicable—implies that media organizations must know the privacy and defamation laws
of each European country, which is criticized as
impractical. In Italy, for example, in 2000, a man
in “a trans-border custodial battle” claimed that
his ex-wife, now resident in Israel, was responsible for posting statements and images on the
Internet that were defamatory of him and derogatory of his ability to care for their two daughters.
The Italian Supreme Court, or Suprema Corte di
Cassazione, overturned a prior verdict from a
190
Regional Overviews
likened to “closing a library because of a single
book that was found to be improper.” 29
Hate speech
European states are also increasingly taking
action against online hate speech, applying their
offline policies to the Internet. Some efforts raise
important issues such as the jurisdiction over
material on the Internet. For example, a French
court in 2000 ruled that U.S.-based Yahoo! Inc. is
liable under French law for allowing the people of
France access to auction sites that include Nazi
memorabilia and demanded that Yahoo! must
ensure that this content is impossible to access
from France or face fines. 30 The case was
brought by two French not-for-profit organizations 31 dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism.
32
Yahoo! brought suit in a U.S. District Court in San
Francisco, claiming that the French court’s ruling
was unenforceable in the United States. The U.S.
court ruled in Yahoo!’s favor in November 2001,
but in 2004 a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned the ruling by the lower
court on the grounds that it “did not have sufficient jurisdiction over the French parties.” 33 After
reconsidering the decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals dismissed Yahoo!’s case in
January 2006 despite claiming jurisdiction over
the matter because Yahoo! had already removed
the materials and, therefore, the requirement to
block would not have done any actual First
Amendment harm. 34
Similarly, the German Federal Court of
Justice ruled in December 2000 that material glorifying the Nazis and denying the Holocaust must
be censored as per German law, regardless of
where it is hosted, based on a case involving an
Australian-based Holocaust revisionist who was
using the Internet to spread his message denying
the atrocities of World War II. 35 In another case,
seventy-eight ISPs in Nordrhein-Westfalen were
ordered to block access to two foreign Web sites
in 2002 that contained neo-Nazi content. 36 The
same regional government of Düsseldorf also
took an anti-censorship activist to court for posting hyperlinks on his Web site to radical rightwing
content that had been censored. 37
Other European countries also have laws
against Holocaust denial and ban material that
promotes racial hatred. These have been “harmonized” in a protocol to the Council of Europe’s
cybercrime treaty, which requires that “any written material, any image, or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, color, descent or national or
ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext
for any of these factors” and “material which
denies, minimizes, approves of or justifies crimes
of genocide or crimes against humanity” must be
made illegal by the signatories. 38 As with all illegal content, once brought to their attention, ISPs
must either take down or block the relevant Web
sites depending on whether the sites are hosted
within the country or abroad.
Defamation
Member states of the EU have expressed the
need for a simplified framework to be applied
with respect to rules concerning defamation by
media or publications via the Internet and other
electronic networks. The general principle in
cases of defamation concerning the media—that
the law of the country where the defamed person
lives is applicable—implies that media organizations must know the privacy and defamation laws
of each European country, which is criticized as
impractical. In Italy, for example, in 2000, a man
in “a trans-border custodial battle” claimed that
his ex-wife, now resident in Israel, was responsible for posting statements and images on the
Internet that were defamatory of him and derogatory of his ability to care for their two daughters.
The Italian Supreme Court, or Suprema Corte di
Cassazione, overturned a prior verdict from a
190
Regional Overviews