Skip to main content
Log in

Freedom of Expression, Internet Responsibility, and Business Ethics: The Yahoo! Saga and Its Implications

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the late 1990s, the Internet seemed a perfect medium for business: a facilitator of unlimited economical propositions to people without any regulatory limitations. Cases such as that of Yahoo! mark the beginning of the end of that illusion. They demonstrate that Internet service providers (ISPs) have to respect domestic state legislation in order to avoid legal risks. Yahoo! was wrong to ignore French national laws and the plea to remove Nazi memorabilia from its auction site. Its legal struggle proved futile and may have harmed its business. This essay argues for the adoption of standards of corporate social responsibility (CSR). CSR considerations may trump some forms of antisocial, highly offensive expression.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “The Internet’s new borders” (2001); Shea (2006, p. K4).

  2. http://everything.yahoo.com/; http://uk.yahoo.com/?p=us.

  3. Section R645-1 of French Criminal Code.

  4. “Yahoo! sued for Nazi-item auctions,” http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth715.htm.

  5. http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.html/.

  6. Guernsey (2001), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E7D71F3AF936A25750C0A9679C8B63.

  7. LICRA v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 2000), affirmed in LICRA and UEJF v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris, 2000), www.foruminternet.org/actualities/lire.phtml?id=273.

  8. La Ligue Contre le Racisme at l’Antisémitisme (L.I.C.R.A.) and L’Union des Etudiants Juifs de France (U.E.J.F.) v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France, Interim Court Order, The County Court of Paris 6 (2000). The Superior Court of Paris reiterated this in its 20 November 2000 order. The original and English translation are provided in the Appendix to the Compliant for Declaratory Relief in Yahoo! Inc. v. L.I.C.R.A. and U.E.J.F., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (No. 00-21275).

  9. “Online Auction of Nazi items sparks debate issue: National laws on global Web” (2000).

  10. Dembart (2000), http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/05/29/ttfrance.2.t.php.

  11. “French court says Yahoo broke racial law” (2000), http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E2D61E3AF930A15756C0A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/A/Auctions.

  12. http://www.implu.com/patent_application/20080275978.

  13. Cyril Houri to Jack Goldsmith, personal communication (September 7, 2004). Quoted in Goldsmith and Wu (2006, p. 7).

  14. Associated Press (2000a, p. A5). However, while Yahoo! removed the items from the commercial auction site it still continued to allow them to be sold in chat rooms accessible worldwide. See Egelko (2005, p. C3).

  15. Union des Etudiants Juifs de France, TGI Paris (Feb 1, 2001), Nov. 20, 2000, Ord. ref., J.C.P. 2000, Actu., 2219; Piazza (2001, p. 38).

  16. Conclusions pour la Société Yahoo! Inc., “A Monsieur le Président du Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris,” Audience de reféré du 15 mai 2000: 18.

  17. La Ligue Contre le Racisme at l’Antisémitisme (L.I.C.R.A.) and L’Union des Etudiants Juifs de France (U.E.J.F.) v. Yahoo! ! Inc. and Yahoo! France, Interim Court Order, The County Court of Paris 6 (2000). http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tgiparis20001120.htm; http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tgiparis20001106-rp.htm. For critical discussion, see Corn-Revere (2003).

  18. LICRA et UEJF v Yahoo! Inc, Ordonnance Réferé, TGI Paris (2000), Ord. ref., J.C.P. 2000, Actu., 2219, at www.lapres.net/yahen11.html; see also Essick (2000), http://www.pcworld.com/article/35419/judge_to_yahoo_block_nazi_goods_from_french.html.

  19. Two days after Judge Gomez decided the Yahoo! case, another judge rendered his verdict on similar facts and issues against UEJF. In this case, Multimania hosted a website entitled “nsdap” (an acronym for the Nazi party) whose content related to Adolf Hitler, the Nazi ideology, Nazi texts, and symbols. Once on notice, Multimania removed access to the website. Multimania had also supervised the websites it hosted by use of a search engine and keywords relating to usual illegal content found on the Internet. However, Multimania had not used the acronym “nsdap” for its search. The court found that Multimania acted reasonably and promptly given its competence and the technical means available to detect illegal content. Unlike Yahoo!, Multimania acted in good faith, and the court held that it was not liable. See Ass’n Union des Etudiants Juifs de France v. SA Multimania Prod., Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (2000), http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tginanterre20000524.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMultimania%2Bnsdap%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4SKPB_enGB304GB304; see also Amadei (2001/2002, p. 189). In National Football League v. TVRadioNow Corp, 53 U.S.P.Q.2d 1831 (2000), a Canadian website was enjoined from transmitting copyrighted programming material into the USA.

  20. Reidenberg (2005, p. 1959) argues that Yahoo! introduced a misleading translation of the French decision at the district court.

  21. Editorial (2001, p. 22); Wolverton and Pelline (2001), http://news.com.com/2100-1017-250452.html?legacy=cnet.

  22. Ibid.

  23. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme Yahoo! Inc., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181; 2001 US Dist. Lexis 18378 (2001).

  24. Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA and UEJF, 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006). See also Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA and UEJF, 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2004).

  25. http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/433/433.F3d.1199.01-17424.html.

  26. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/.

  27. http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/faculty/gertz/hugoblack.htm.

  28. See also Black (1960, p. 879), Meiklejohn (1966, pp. 19–26), Emerson (1970), Baker (1992), BeVier (1978, pp. 299–358), Schauer (1982), Dworkin (1985), Bollinger (1986), Smolla (1993), Gates Jr. et al. (1995), Fiss (2000, pp. 70–78), and Newman (2010, pp. 119–123). For views that balance freedom of expression with other values such as privacy and the dignity of a person, see Matsuda et al. (1993), Tsesis (2002a), Delgado and Stefancic (2004), and Cohen-Almagor (1994, 2005, 2006, 2007).

  29. On the horrors of WWII, their root causes and justifications, see Hilberg (1985), Mosse (1997), Klee et al. (1996), Sereny (1983), Burleigh and Wippermann (1993), Fings et al. (1997), Fings (1999), Aly et al. (2003), Lusane (2002), Brustein (2003), Johnson and Reuband (2006), Ehrenreich (2007), Browning (2007), Goldhagen (2009), Kershaw (2009); Nazi racism, http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007679; Racism: An Overview, http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005184; Wistrich (2010).

  30. Sadurski (1999, p. 179), http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4Ldb0cIbS7kC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=Netherlands,+Section+137+of+the+Criminal+Code&source=bl&ots=veYMMuCqXf&sig=m_ua2h6o5FBoyBcWgP44tLkOo1c&hl=en&ei=uyIBTPffG5v80wS3n533Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CDsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Netherlands%2C%20Section%20137%20of%20the%20Criminal%20Code&f=false.

  31. Public Order Act, 1936, 1 Edw. 8 & 1 Geo. 6, c. 6, § 5, (U.K.), http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=2236942.

  32. Barendt (2007), Supperstone (1981, p. 15); Home Office, Racial Discrimination, White Paper (1975), Commd. 6234; Commission for Racial Equality, Reviews of the Race Relations Act (1985/1992); Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Race Relations Act 1976 (1976); Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. See also: Commission for Racial Equality, Fairness for All, Reviews of the Race Relations Act http://www.jrank.org/cultures/pages/179/Commission-Racial-Equality.html#ixzz1AVMgqg47.

  33. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1986/cukpga_19860064_en_4.

  34. I asked the eminent historian, Saul Friedlander, how to explain the American attitude to hate speech as compared with the European. He answered (on July 22, 2011) that the striking difference is especially “between the situation in most of continental Europe, on the one hand, and in Great Britain, Sweden and Switzerland, on the other (who were not under German occupation). In the US, in my opinion, the first amendment is crucial.”

  35. In August 2000, the Dusseldorf District Authority President, Jurgen Bussow, wrote to four American ISPs, requesting that they prevent access to four websites containing racist, neo-Nazi material. This action was unsuccessful. See Akdeniz (2008, p. 236). On February 8, 2002, Bussow ordered all ISPs in the German State of Nordrhein-Westfalen (North Rhine-Westphalia) to block user access to two specific US-based hate sites, Stormfront and Nazi-Lauck (Press Release, Bezirksregierung Düsseldorf erlässt Sperrungsverfügungen wegen rechtsextremischer Angebote im Internet, 42/2002 Feb. 8, 2002). More than 30 of the 76 ISPs in Nordrhein-Westfalen lost various court battles which may be found in Oberverwaltungsgericht Münster, 2003 Multimedia und Recht (MMR) 348; Verwaltungsgericht Düsseldorf 2003 MMR 305; Verwaltungsgericht Arnsberg 2003 Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht Rechtsprechungsreport 222. However, this blocking directive is local and does not compel the other German landers (states), and it relates to only two hate sites. See Eberwine (2004).

  36. For further discussion, see Horrigan (2010).

  37. See also Kotler and Lee (2005).

  38. See also Crane (2009).

  39. Compare with the responsibilities of the press; see McQuail (2003, p. 191) and Cohen-Almagor (2005, pp. 87–123).

  40. See also Fannon (2003, pp. 93–103).

  41. http://www.datapipe.com/Social_Responsibility.aspx.

  42. For further discussion, see Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy, Working Party on the Information Economy (2006), http://www.biac.org/members/iccp/mtg/2008-06-seoul-min/DSTI-ICCP-IE(2005)3-FINAL.pdf; see also Price and Verhulst (2000).

  43. http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms.

  44. http://legal.web.aol.com/aol/aolpol/comguide.html.

  45. CDA 47 U.S.C. at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html.

  46. http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/.

  47. For critic of Google for its lax attitude on human rights in China, see Dann and Haddow (2008, pp. 219–234).

  48. Among them are The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), http://cdt.org/; The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), http://www.eff.org/; The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), http://epic.org/; The Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC), http://gilc.org/; The Internet Society, http://www.isoc.org/; The Association for Progressive Communication, http://www.apc.org; Save the Internet, http://savetheinternet.com/.

References

  • Akdeniz, Y. (2008). Internet child pornography and the law. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aly, G., Heim, S., & Blunden, A. G. (2003). Architects of annihilation: Auschwitz and the logic of destruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amadei, X. (November 2001/February 2002). NOTE: Standards of liability for Internet service providers: A comparative study of France and the United States with a specific focus on copyright, defamation, and illicit content. Cornell International Law Journal, 35, 189. http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-87710965.html.

  • Ass’n Union des Etudiants Juifs de France v. SA Multimania Prod. (2000, May 24). Tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre. http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tginanterre20000524.htm&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMultimania%2Bnsdap%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4SKPB_enGB304GB304.

  • Associated Press. (2000a, July 25). Groups sue Yahoo! over sale of Nazi objects in France. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), A5.

  • Associated Press. (2000b, November 21). Yahoo loses court ruling in France. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin), 3D.

  • Baker, C. E. (1992). Human liberty and freedom of speech. New York: Oxford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barendt, E. (2007). Freedom of speech. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • BeVier, L. R. (1978). The first amendment and political speech: An inquiry into the substance and limits of principle. Stanford Law Review, 30(2), 299–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, H. L. (1960). The bill of rights. New York University Law Review, 35, 865–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollinger, L. C. (1986). The tolerant society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, D. (2011, March 22). Opinion: ‘No law’ means ‘no law’ when it comes to protecting NPR and the First Amendment. First Amendment Coalition. http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2011/03/opinion-no-law-means-no-law-when-it-comes-to-protecting-npr-and-the-first-amendment/.

  • Browning, C. R. (2007). The origins of the final solution: The evolution of Nazi Jewish policy, September 1939–March 1942. Winnipeg: Bison Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brustein, W. I. (2003). Roots of hate: Anti-semitism in Europe before the Holocaust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burleigh, M., & Wippermann, W. (1993). The racial state: Germany 1933–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, T., & Miller, S. (Eds.). (2004). Human rights and the moral responsibilities of corporate and public sector organizations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1981). Business and society: Managing corporate social performance. Boston: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2011). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. New York: South-Western College Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Almagor, R. (1993). Harm principle, offence principle, and the Skokie affair. Political Studies, XLI(3), 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Almagor, R. (1994). The boundaries of liberty and tolerance. Gainesville, FL: The University Press of Florida.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Almagor, R. (2005). Speech, media and ethics. Houndmills: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Almagor, R. (2006). The scope of tolerance. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Almagor, R. (2007). The democratic “catch”: Free speech and its limits. Tel Aviv: Maariv Publication House (Hebrew).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Almagor, R. (2010). Countering hate on the Internet—a rejoinder. Amsterdam Law Forum, 2(2), 125–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission for Racial Equality. (1985/1992). Reviews of the race relations act.

  • Commission for Racial Equality, Fairness for All. Reviews of the race relations act. http://www.jrank.org/cultures/pages/179/Commission-Racial-Equality.html#ixzz1AVMgqg47.

  • Corn-Revere, R. (2003). Caught in the seamless web: Does the Internet’s global reach justify less freedom of speech? In A. Thierer & C. W. Crews Jr. (Eds.), Who rules the net?. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, A. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford Handbooks Online.

  • Crumm, D., & Capeloto, A. (2000, December 11). Hate is up for bid on some web sites sellers hawk Hitler trinkets, KKK knives. Detroit Free Press, A1.

  • Cue, E. (2001, January 10). National boundaries: Latest frontier in cyberspace. Christian Science Monitor, 1.

  • Dann, G. E., & Haddow, N. (2008). Just doing business or doing just business: Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and the business of censoring China’s Internet. Journal of Business Ethics, 79, 219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312–322. http://uweb.txstate.edu/~ek10/socialresponsibility.pdf.

  • Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2004). Understanding words that wound. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dembart, L. (2000, May 29). Boundaries on Nazi sites remain unsettled in Internet’s global village. International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/articles/2000/05/29/ttfrance.2.t.php.

  • Dennis, E. E., Gillmor, D. M., & Grey, D. L. (Eds.). (1978). Justice Hugo Black and the first amendment: “‘No law’ means no law”. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy. (2006). Working party on the information economy. http://www.biac.org/members/iccp/mtg/2008-06-seoul-min/DSTI-ICCP-IE(2005)3-FINAL.pdf.

  • Dworkin, R. (1985). A matter of principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberwine, E. T. (2004). Sound and fury signifying nothing: Jurgen Bussow’s battle against hate-speech on the Internet. New York Law Review, 49, 353–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Editorial. (2001, January 13). A web of thought control. Chicago Tribune, 22.

  • Egelko, B. (2005, February 11). Yahoo getting new hearing on posting Nazi items. The San Francisco Chronicle, C3.

  • Ehrenreich, E. (2007). The Nazi ancestral proof: Genealogy, racial science, and the final solution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, T. I. (1970). The system of freedom of expression. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Essick, K. (2000, November 21). Judge to Yahoo: Block Nazi goods from French. PCWorld. http://www.pcworld.com/article/35419/judge_to_yahoo_block_nazi_goods_from_french.html.

  • Fannon, I. L. (2003). Working within two kinds of capitalism. Portland, OR: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fings, K. (1999). In the shadow of the swastika: Volume 2: The gypsies during the Second World War. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fings, K., et al. (1997). The gypsies during the Second World War: Volume 1: From race science to the camps. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiss, O. (2000). Freedom of speech and political violence. In R. Cohen-Almagor (Ed.), Liberal democracy and the limits of tolerance (pp. 70–78). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2001). Artificial evil and the foundation of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French court says Yahoo broke racial law. (2000, May 23). The New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00E2D61E3AF930A15756C0A9669C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/A/Auctions.

  • Galbreath, J. (2010). Drivers of corporate social responsibility: The role of formal strategic planning and firm culture. British Journal of Management, 21, 511–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gates, H. L., Jr., et al. (1995). Speaking of race, speaking of sex: Hate speech, civil rights, and civil liberties. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the Internet? Illusions of a borderless world. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodpaster, K. E. (2010). Corporate responsibility and its constituents. In G. G. Brenkert & T. L. Beauchamp (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of business ethics (pp. 126–157). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guernsey, L. (2001, March 15). Welcome to the web. Passport, please? New York Times. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B01E7D71F3AF936A25750C0A9679C8B63.

  • Hamdani, A. (2002, May). Who’s liable for cyberwrongs? Cornell Law Review, 87, 901–957. http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/cornell-law-review/upload/Hamdani.pdf.

  • Heyman, S. J. (2008). Free speech and human dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilberg, R. (1985). The destruction of the European Jews. New York: Holmes and Meier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office. (1975, September). Racial discrimination. White Paper, Commd. 6234.

  • Horrigan, B. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: Debates, models and practices across government, law and business. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Internet extremism growing in Germany. (2010, August 26). Hate Monitor Net. http://groups.google.com/group/hate-monitor-net/browse_thread/thread/e73b32d616e6cb80.

  • Johnson, E. A., & Reuband, K.-H. (2006). What we knew: Terror, mass murder, and everyday life in Nazi Germany. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. D. (1998). Human rights: Group defamation, freedom of expression and the law of nations. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, M., Janda, R., & Pitts, C. (2009). Corporate social responsibility—a legal analysis. Markham, ON: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kershaw, I. (2009). Hitler, the Germans, and the final solution. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klee, E., et al. (Eds.). (1996). The good old days: The Holocaust as seen by its perpetrators and bystanders. New York: William S. Konecky Associate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohl, U. (2007). Jurisdiction and the Internet: A study of regulatory competence over online activity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Konvitz, M. R. (1963). First amendment freedoms. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuchinskas, S. (2005, March 23). Google axes hate news. Internetnews.com. http://www.internetnews.com/xSP/article.php/3492361.

  • La Ligue Contre le Racisme at l’Antisémitisme (L.I.C.R.A.) and L’Union des Etudiants Juifs de France (U.E.J.F.) v. Yahoo! ! Inc. and Yahoo! France. (2000, May 22). Interim Court Order, The County Court of Paris 6. http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisfr/cti/tgiparis20001120.htm.

  • Lawrence, F. M. (2006). The hate crime project and its limitations: Evaluating the societal gains and risk in bias crime law enforcement. GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper, No. 216. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=921923.

  • Le Menestrel, M., Hunter, M., & de Bettignies, H.-C. (2002). Internet e-ethics in confrontation with an activists’ agenda: Yahoo! on trial. Journal of Business Ethics, 39, 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K.-H., & Shin, D. (2010). Consumers’ responses to CSR activities: The linkage between increased awareness and purchase intention. Public Relations Review, 36, 193–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levmore, S., & Nussbaum, M. C. (Eds.). (2010). The offensive Internet: Speech, privacy, and reputation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, S. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 356–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LICRA and UEJF v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France. (2000, November 20). Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris. www.foruminternet.org/actualities/lire.phtml?id=273.

  • LICRA v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France. (2000, May 22). Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris.

  • Love, B. (2000, August 11). Auctions of Nazi gear may yet cost Yahoo! The Seattle Times, C6.

  • Lusane, C. (2002). Hitler’s black victims: The historical experiences of European Blacks, Africans and African Americans during the Nazi Era. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, E. W. (1961). The tyranny of the majority. London: Pall Mall Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsuda, M. J., et al. (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullagh, D. (2002, October 23). Google excluding controversial sites. CNET News.

  • McGroarty, P. (2009, July 10). Germany calls for ban of neo-Nazi sites abroad. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/germany-calls-for-ban-of-neonazi-sites-abroad-20090710-devv.html.

  • McQuail, D. (2003). Media accountability and freedom of publication. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiklejohn, A. (1965). Political freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meiklejohn, A. (1966). Freedom of speech. In P. Radcliff (Ed.), Limits of liberty (pp. 19–26). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosse, G. L. (1997). Toward the final solution: A history of European racism. New York: Howard Fertig.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nazi racism. http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007679.

  • Newman, S. L. (2010). Should hate speech be allowed on the Internet? A reply to Raphael Cohen-Almagor. Amsterdam Law Forum, 2(2), 119–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Online Auction of Nazi items sparks debate issue: National laws on global Web. (2000, July 25). San Jose Mercury News.

  • Painter-Morland, M. (2011). Business ethics as practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, P. (2001). Yahoo! must prevent French from accessing Nazi memorabilia auction sites. Security Management, 45(2), 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. E., & Verhulst, S. G. (2000). The concept of self-regulation and the Internet. In J. Waltermann & M. Machill (Eds.), Protecting our children on the Internet: Towards a new culture of responsibility. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Racism: An overview. http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005184.

  • Radin, D. (2001, January 11). Yahoo! Auction is right to ban Nazi goods. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), F3.

  • Ramasastry, A. (2003, February 6). Can Europe block racist web sites from its borders? CNN.com.

  • Reidenberg, J. R. (2005). Technology and Internet jurisdiction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1959. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=691501.

  • Reuters. (2000a, November 21). French court tells Yahoo to block Nazi auction sites. Orlando Sentinel (Florida), B1.

  • Reuters. (2000b, November 22). Yahoo! stock plunges to lowest level since ’98. Orlando Sentinel (Florida), B5.

  • Reuters. (2002, February 27). Yahoo headed for trial in France. The New York Times, C4.

  • Sadurski, W. (1999). Freedom of speech and its limits. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schauer, F. (1982). Free speech: A philosophical enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheeres, J. (2002, November 9). European outlaw net hate speech. Wired News.

  • Sereny, G. (1983). Into that darkness: An examination of conscience. New York: Vintage Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, M. (1966). Freedom of speech. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shea, C. (2006, January 15). Sovereignty in cyberspace. The Boston Globe, K4.

  • Smolla, R. A. (1993). Free speech in an open society. London: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supperstone, M. (1981). Brownlie’s law of public order and national security. London: Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Internet’s new borders. (2001, August 11). The Economist.

  • Thornburgh, D., & Lin, H. S. (Eds.). (2002). Youth, pornography, and the Internet. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsesis, A. (2002a). Destructive messages: How hate speech paves the way for harmful social movements. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsesis, A. (2002b). Prohibiting incitement on the Internet. Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 7(2), 5. http://www.vjolt.net/vol7/issue2/v7i2_a05-Tsesis.pdf.

  • Tsesis, A. (2009). Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in a democracy. Wake Forest Law Review, 44, 497–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Union des Etudiants Juifs de France. (2001, February 1). TGI Paris: November 20, 2000, Ord. ref., J.C.P. 2000, Actu., 2219.

  • Vick, D. W. (2005). Regulating hatred. In M. Klang & A. Murray (Eds.), Human rights in the digital age. London: GlassHouse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron, J. (2010). Dignity and defamation: The visibility of hate. Harvard Law Review, 123, 1596–1657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werther, W. B., & Chandler, D. B. (2010). Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wistrich, R. S. (2010). A lethal obsession: Anti-semitism from antiquity to the global jihad. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolverton, T., & Pelline, J. (2001, January 2). Yahoo! to charge auction fees, ban hate materials. CNet News.com. http://news.com.com/2100-1017-250452.html?legacy=cnet.

  • Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme Yahoo! Inc. (2001, November 7). 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181; 2001 US Dist. Lexis 18378.

  • Yahoo! Inc. v. L.I.C.R.A. and U.E.J.F., 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (No. 00-21275).

  • Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA and UEJF, 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2004).

  • Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA and UEJF, 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006).

  • Yahoo! Ruling Exposes Risks of Being Global. (2000, July 1). Internet World.

  • Yahoo! sued for Nazi-item auctions. http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cth715.htm.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Janet Spikes for her excellent research assistance. Gratitude is also expressed to Ann Bartow, Nikolaus Peifer, Joel R. Reidenberg, and Jack Hayward for their useful suggestions and incisive criticisms. Loren Falkenberg and the referees of Journal of Business Ethics provided most constructive comments. All websites were accessed during May–June 2011.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raphael Cohen-Almagor.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cohen-Almagor, R. Freedom of Expression, Internet Responsibility, and Business Ethics: The Yahoo! Saga and Its Implications. J Bus Ethics 106, 353–365 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1001-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1001-z

Keywords

Navigation