Traditional Law, the virtual environment and UEJF v. Yahoo

The ‘Licra et UEJF v. Yahoo! Inc.’ cases have raisedsome difficult issues for courts in different jurisdictions. Criticallyanalyzewhether the responsesbythe various courts are supported by claims from Johnson and Post that traditional laws fail to be effective in the virtual environment.

This case was initiated between the famous internet browser service provider and the two students’ organizations. YAHOO!, INC. V. LICRA case became very famous as it was one of the cases, which attracted the attention of the people from all around the world regarding the freedom of speech. In fact, the internet has become a place where the people are able to express their thoughts to the whole of the world without ignoring the factor of limitations. There should be limitations at everything and on every place.

The only things required regarding this matter is that there is severe need to take care of the freedom of speech. This is what happened in this case. This case was solved by the French court in 2001 and has many aspects to discuss. This case has raised a number of questions or more properly issues regarding the jurisdiction for the courts. Moreover, this case raised the problem of freedom of expression, and it became the matter of two countries in this case.

Paraphernalia of Nazi

In fact, the freedom of speech does not mean that this factor is alike in all over the world. There are many countries of the world where this is one of the factors that is given proper consideration. For instance, as this case was started in France, where the freedom of speech is noticed to be lesser important than United State of America, this was the main reason that initiated this case. The reason that questioned over the freedom of speech was the disclosure of the paraphernalia of Nazi or Third Reich memorabilia over the internet by Yahoo. In fact, it showed the complete set of things that were in the use of the Nazis, which include coins, stamps, texts, and even photographs.

This was completely prohibited by the French government. The French high court was of the opinion that Yahoo has violated the law and has shown what it was not expected to show. According to the court, French Penal Code R. 645-1 of the constitution has been violated and Yahoo did not maintain the limitations over the concept of freedom of speech. The court gave its verdict by saying that in this way, there will be many more such like cases, which will violate the rules and regulations of the country. The court imposed a number of restrictions over Yahoo Corporation.

On the other side, the corporation considered it to be against the freedom of speech by declaring that the freedom of speech was the right of everybody, and declared it the act, which was against the first amendment in the US constitution, which is completely related to the freedom of speech. The corporation took the assistance of the US courts by declaring that the French court gave the strict verdict. This was the reason that made the situation more complex. When it is the matter of two countries and their courts, the situation get complex and a thorough research is required to come onto the conclusion.

Both of the country have different definition of the phrase “Freedom of Speech” and have their own rules of laws that will consider this case in accordance to their own point of view. The comment by the court was consisted of the three major sections that covered the different issue related to the case.

Three sections of the comment

The major factor of the comment by the French court was that it was having the three sections; the first one was related to similarities that were there between the two countries, France and USA, the second one was related to explanation of the internet and its background. Moreover, the similar cases were quoted like the court gave an example of the procedure through which L 'Union Des Etudiants Juifs De France ("UEJF") and La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L 'Antisemitisme ("LICRA") raised the Yahoo! Case. In the same section, the decision of the French Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris and the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California were also provided. The reason for all that was to provide the similarities among the decisions that were made for the similar cases. The court wanted to show that it imposed the right and justified restrictions over the Yahoo Corporation. The third section of the comment was related to the collaboration between the two countries. First, it seemed to be related to the actions that the French court can take against any illegal act over the name of the freedom of speech, but later on this section, the whole of the picture came on scene in which, there was the description related to the collective actions that the two countries may take to control any such activity.

En Banc judgment

Just like this case, on 2006, the court in France provided the en banc judgment means the whole of the bench of the justices gave verdict on the case at hand, in which, the arguments of the Yahoo were clearly described, and the act of the company was considered to be the violation of the French criminal laws. After doing that Yahoo was trying to reveal itself behind the curtain of the first amendment, which in that case was uncertain. There were many opinions in this case, the management of the company was considering it to be the case of freedom of speech; while, on the other side, the French authorities were considering it to be the case related to the country’s criminal law. So that, in fact, created the problems in the relationship of the two countries.

Freedom of speech

There are a number of cases in the history of the world, which are related to the freedom of speech and they are making full of this concept. This phrase does not mean that the religious belief of any nation are teased, this will not be freedom of speech. Making the people strong in this regard, the first amendment of the US constitution played a crucial role. People especially, the citizens of the America, though, after its passage and implementation, that they can say whatever they have in their minds. The basics thing in this regard is that all the countries of the world have different meaning of this and are not obliged to obey the same rules and regulations imposed in US. This and likewise matters created and are creating problems especially for the courts. They are unable and having difficulties in solving the same cases.

In the US, the people are not imposed with any sort of restrictions related to what they say. They are not even stopped if they are involved in any sort of political speech. They might be having various political views, and they are free to speak up what they wanted to say. Due to the first amendment, all the sectors of the countries including the corporations and the common people are entitled to speak whatever they think is best for them. In this regard, “article eleven of France’s declaration of the rights of man and of the citizen” is enough to show the history for the right and the freedom to speech to the people living in France. This aided to the mentioned case at that time.

The courts of the world till this time are not clear about which matter is related to the freedom of speech and which is not. They are unable to make their decisions in accordance to the law because; the amendments done by the government have changed their views about freedom of speech. There are certain types of acts which are protected too by this amendment. These include the burning of a flag and cross burning. There are multiple countries which have strictly banned to burn the flag of a country, and it is considered to be an offense but in the developed countries like the US it is the matter of freedom of expression.

There are many instances that are covered in the amendment and it is established to protect the people and their right to say whatever they have in their minds. In Reno v. A.C.L.U case, it was said by Justice Stevens that the protection from the government restrictions should be provided to the conversation of the people over the internet. There are many such cases which have shown the importance of the freedom of speech.

Virtual environment and freedom of speech

The internet is very wide platform for everybody to share his or her thought with the world. It has made the process of the providing information to the people regarding the issues happening in the world. People are now able to provide their thoughts to someone living in any other part of the world. It has made the concept of first amendment stronger than ever as the people without any fear share their thoughts whether they hurt to someone or not, they do not take care of this. The issue rose by the internet are really very complex and the traditional laws seem to be ineffective in this regard. They have been failed in protecting the people from being hurt by the other people’s freedom of speech’s slogan. If they raised this issue within the courts, they get half success in the compensation processes. In this situation, the basic thing is that of jurisdiction; they, sometimes, become unable to form the right decision.

The virtual environment is very diverse and there exist a number of people by maintaining the accounts, they can contact to any person living anywhere in the world. Now is the time to mention all the rules and regulations to everybody in this virtual environment. Just like the above mentioned cases, there are a number of others, which created the problems and complexities for the people as well as for the courts. Every country has its own regulations especially regarding to the freedom of speech, and we cannot make them similar to each other. Freedom of speech is a very diverse topic and its definitions vary from one place to another. There are many that are still to be done to make the virtual environment stronger and stronger. People should be given with the right to speak, they have to make themselves aware of the situation at hand, but the concept alters when its misuse happens.

There are certain problems that are related to the internet. Nobody can say it firmly that the problems in its environment will be solved soon after this time. This is the matter since its inception, there are issues that the people have with internet, and they want to get them solved. Till this time, the people and the companies have met with half of the success. There are a number of steps that are still required to be taken, without which, the rising in the issues will be continuing and there will be no stoppage over them. The problems are gaining strengths and the only way to control all of them is to form the laws and regulations so that everybody could understand what is to say and what is to not.

Conclusion

All the cases are related to freedom of speech are little complex ones especially, when it is the matter of difference in jurisdiction. There exist differences in the meaning of the freedom of speech, the thing which is all right or justified at one place of the world might be banned in another place. The rules and regulations are also different to deal with someone who has broken the law, just like the most famous case that has been described above. French and the USA are the governments that are the main stakeholders of this case; both of them have different rules and regulations that explain this concept in a different way. Their constitutions are also different in this regard, but the court of the France did not let the Yahoo Corporation carry on the thing that was reflected to be the illegal, they knew if this matter went without being noticed, other persons over the internet will do the same and will give no consideration to the laws formed by the government.