“I disapprove of what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it.” Attributed to Voltaire, this quote captures the spirit behind freedom of speech. Sadly, France, the nation of Voltaire’s birth, still fails to see the wisdom of his words.
The International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism and the Union of French Jewish Students, two French “human rights” groups, have sued the the American company Yahoo for allowing Nazi memorabilia to be listed on its online auction site, a violation of France’s so-called anti-hate laws.
The auction site has been fined by a French court for the postings, but a series of rulings by American courts first held that the charges were a violation of the company’s First Amendment rights. Then the courts overturned the first ruling because the French charges could not be dismissed until brought into the American court system.
The 2-1 majority of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, “Yahoo cannot expect both to benefit from the fact that its content may be viewed around the world and to be shielded from the resulting costs.”
While the Court of Appeals ruling does not negate the First Amendment defense, it is still a danger to First Amendment free speech rights.
Radio, television and the Internet in particular extend the range and audience of any speaker. They cross both national and cultural boundaries, allowing for words said in America to reach anywhere in the world. Potentially, these words could violate the laws of nations who do not heed the wisdom of Voltaire.
The appeals court ruling is wrong because, under the Constitution, there can be no “resulting costs,” regardless of who can view the message.
When these laws attempt to silence American speech, they must not be allowed any jurisdiction for two reasons. First, the Constitution not only prevents “abridging the freedom speech,” but it is also the supreme law of the land. Its critical protections of freedom are only effective so long as it remains the supreme law. Other nations laws cannot be allowed to take precedence, even in limited cases such as the Yahoo case.
Second, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Without it, critical ideas about human rights cannot be shared and dissenters can be made to disappear mysteriously. Any abridgement of freedom of speech is a threat to all freedoms. Whenever cases threatening free speech are even arguably within American jurisdiction, the courts should rule to protect and foster free speech.
Of course, the French might claim that spreading Nazi memorabilia is not protected speech. However, banning the sale of Nazi memorabilia is a form of information control and an attempt to limit speech simply because the speech is offensive. Nearly everything is offensive to somebody, so banning offensive speech is one of the faster ways to destroy free speech.
Furthermore, Nazi memorabilia is a part of our history, and history, no matter how dark, is something that must be studied and shared. Attempting to hide or change it makes it only much more easily repeated.
The French “human rights” groups-who apparently believe that free speech is not a right-claim that Yahoo’s refusal to bend to the French law is a case of American speech values imposing themselves on the world. If two human rights groups can claim free speech is an American-rather than universal-value, we still have a long way to go in the ideals of freedom.
Nathan Alday is a senior aerospace engineering major. He can be reached at [email protected].