|
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
| 
May 5 06:44 UTC 2002 |
Sometimes you just have to shake your head and wonder at it all.
On eBay and other auction sites the sale of nazi memorabilia is
banned. Not because it is illegal in the USA but because it is
illegal in certain other countries who might have users that can
access US sites located in the USA. Fine and dandy, that is there
and this is here. Let them track down and prosecute their own
citizens for violating their own laws right? Well, it don't exactly
work that way. What they do is file lawsuits in their own country
and US companies have to go through the time and expense and
negative publicity of fighting the damn thing, or knuckling under
to foreign pressure - something we wouldn't tolerate if it were a
political issue right? I mean one of the 'charges' against former
president Clinton was that the PRC was able to purchase political
influence. That was 'bad' according to the pundits. Yet the
shoe is quite obviously on the other hand when it comes to foreign
governments and their court systems whom we like? The saudi's get
female ATCs banned from working while one of their crown princes
is flying. The EU gets to rule on US corporate mergers - not because
they are so concerned about the US population but because obviously
they are protective of their own corporations what might find it
harder to compete against the 'foreign' monopoly and the US goes
along with it. Then when the US tries to protect its own steel
industry (long moribund by this time in my opinion) the howls from
the EU et al are most amusing. Anyways, back to nazis. I don't
collect such memorabilia so it really doesn't make any difference to
me one way or another from that perspective. But I just find it
sort of ironic that Germany is one of the countries that outlaws
such and attempts to impose its cultural views on such things on
the rest of the world. Now that wouldn't bother me so much either
except when they attempt to impose their views on the USA. But back
to the irony...If you visit the museum of fine arts in Munich, Germany
you will be visiting a building built in the 1930s and dedicated by
the political leader of the time (wonder who that was). It is an
older building constructed in a sorta neo classical style and has
a portico (front porch) which has a tile mosaic in the ceiling. Take
a wild guess what the mosaic portrays? Something that would be
illegal to draw on a poster of Sharon during a political protest
outside the israeli consulate in the same city?
|
| 106 responses total. |
aaron
|
|
response 1 of 106:
|
May 5 16:30 UTC 2002 |
A moustache? Who is Sharon, and why is it illegal to draw a moustache on
her?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 106:
|
May 5 19:06 UTC 2002 |
Germany is not imposing its views on the USA. Ebay is not the USA. Ebay
has to decide for itself how it deals with complaints from anywhere. It
has chosen to honor these requests for a variety of reasons. This is their
right and represents the freedoms we value. Take your business some
place else if you don't like their decisions enough: this is the American
way.
|
senna
|
|
response 3 of 106:
|
May 5 21:02 UTC 2002 |
I'll agree with Rane--Ebay is responsible for its own decisions, and it is
perfectly entitled to adjust its policies to suit various people who wish it
to do so, just as it changes policies to suit local laws here in the States.
|
md
|
|
response 4 of 106:
|
May 5 21:06 UTC 2002 |
On a South Park episode my kids were laughing so hard about they could
barely speak to tell me about it, the official town flag was found to
be politically incorrect - picture of black guy hanging while white
guys cheer - so they changed it to the politically correct version:
black guy hanging while white guy, yellow guy, red guy and black guy
cheer.
|
aaron
|
|
response 5 of 106:
|
May 5 21:52 UTC 2002 |
Who was the white guy they were hanging?
|
md
|
|
response 6 of 106:
|
May 5 22:01 UTC 2002 |
Didn't see it, don't know.
|
scott
|
|
response 7 of 106:
|
May 6 00:22 UTC 2002 |
Sounds like South Park is still holding their edge pretty well. :)
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 8 of 106:
|
May 6 09:37 UTC 2002 |
yeah, but I'll bet Trey Parker would just LOOOOOVVVVEEEE me.
after all, I'm one of those special people that got to go to Heaven
while everyone else went to Hell.
And not all of those special people can be Orgazmo.
|
gull
|
|
response 9 of 106:
|
May 6 13:40 UTC 2002 |
Re #0: It really is kind of frightening...not so much the eBay case, but the
way the WTO now effectively has veto power over U.S. and state regulations.
There are actually cases where a *state* government passed a regulation that
was overturned because it violated the WTO treaty. What happened to our
national sovereignty?
|
brighn
|
|
response 10 of 106:
|
May 6 14:06 UTC 2002 |
#5> I think you misread #4. The guy being lynched was black in both versions
of the flag. At any rate, they're just stick-figures (although at one point
the mayor puts a smiley face on the black guy to try to mollify Chef, who's
the one raising the stink).
In that episode, Kenny dies by eating a bowlful of antacids, thinking they're
mints, and then drinks a glass of water, thus exploding.
#2, #3> I agree. Why do so many people think that private companies are
beholden to the First Amendment, etc., and are violating America if they
filter their products catalog?
|
gull
|
|
response 11 of 106:
|
May 6 14:55 UTC 2002 |
The same people who claim it's "censorship" when the local newspaper won't
print their letter to the editor.
|
brighn
|
|
response 12 of 106:
|
May 6 15:03 UTC 2002 |
It *is* censorship. Private companies have the legal right to censor.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 13 of 106:
|
May 6 15:32 UTC 2002 |
Mostly. If they're acting like a government, they can't. If they;'re common
carriers, they can't. If they're acting as an agent of the government, they
may or may not be able to...
|
brighn
|
|
response 14 of 106:
|
May 6 15:48 UTC 2002 |
Non-monopolistic privat companies functioning as private companies have the
right to cencor what they themselves publish/produce.
Does that cover all the loopholes? ;}
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 15 of 106:
|
May 6 19:40 UTC 2002 |
I think so...
|
mcnally
|
|
response 16 of 106:
|
May 7 03:59 UTC 2002 |
Censorship is when you selectively forbid publication of material based
on the material's content.
Choosing not to publish something is completely different.
|
brighn
|
|
response 17 of 106:
|
May 7 05:29 UTC 2002 |
I"m not sure what the relevance of your comment is, Mike. Private companies
can censor, so long as <yada yada about connection with government>.Magazines
and newspapers reject much of what they receive based on the quality of the
writing, the relevance to the periodical, the number of similar submissions
received, etc... yes, I agree, that's not censorship. But most periodicals
also have some sort of standard of "we won't publish THAT, no matter how good
it is," and that's censorship (for instance, I'd be willing to bet that
Reader's Digest would never publish kiddie porn fiction, even if their readers
started a letter-writing campaign asking them to).
|
clees
|
|
response 18 of 106:
|
May 7 06:22 UTC 2002 |
If Ebay doesn't like to abide to foreign trade laws they should stick
to the american market. If they want to expand to international market
they will have to abide to international rules. Certainly when moving
in an international field like Internet. Internet does not know any
boundaries, but trade does. Hence WTO. Although I am no supporter of
this 'who can stuff their pockets whatever they like'orgianization,
it's the logical downside of international trade.
This works in two directions, of course.
|
bdh3
|
|
response 19 of 106:
|
May 7 07:56 UTC 2002 |
The alternaive view of this is that foreigners visiting an US hosted
company purchase goods and services subject to US law. ITs
the same as if they hopped on an airplane and came over here.
I doubt a dutchman busted for purchasing pot in the US would get
very far claiming since it wasn't illegal 'back home' he should
be allowed to do so in the US. Similarly it should be the
expense and responsability of foreign governments to police
their citizens inside their own boarders.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 20 of 106:
|
May 7 10:50 UTC 2002 |
Re #18: How would you feel if they removed anything containing an image
of a person in order to get compliant with Saudi law?
|
gull
|
|
response 21 of 106:
|
May 7 13:17 UTC 2002 |
Exactly. What's worrisome about this is the natural conclusion would be an
Internet that was sort of a least common denominator -- anything that was
illegal *anywhere* couldn't be posted. That means no political writing, for
example, since it's illegal in China...
|
jp2
|
|
response 22 of 106:
|
May 7 13:20 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
brighn
|
|
response 23 of 106:
|
May 7 15:57 UTC 2002 |
#21> I don't see how that's the natural conclusion. I wasn't aware that Ebay
ran the Internet.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 24 of 106:
|
May 7 16:02 UTC 2002 |
It seems to me that citizens of different countries are only subject
to the laws of their own countries, and only IN their own countries.
American law would not apply to my buying and using marijuana in the
Netherlands, where it is legal. Beyond this, it is a matter of
negotiation between nations and the businesses that do business in
other nations. While Ebay may agree to not carry Nazi memorabilia out
of deference to feelings in some nations and of some individuals, this
is solely a matter of conscience on their part. In fact, eventually the
attitudes on this will change as the subject becomes just a matter
of ancient history.
|