Home

Evan Scheffel


Publications

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles: Former Bunny's Use of Trademarked Terms is Permissible, As No Other Practical Way to Describe Her Exists 

Author: Evan Scheffel

Abstract

No abstract available.

    circuit court defendant describe ninth playboy term trademark trademarked welle

Volume 18
Issue 2
Page 355

 Download the article.
 

Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contra Le Racisme et L'Antisemitism: Court Refuses to Enforce French Order Attempting to Regulate Speech Occurring Simultaneously in the U.S. and in France 

Author: Evan Scheffel

Abstract

     In this landmark case, the United States District Court of California held that the enforcement of a French order prohibiting the sale or display of Nazi propaganda and artifacts through the use of a Web site owned by the U.S.-based Internet service provider Yahoo!, Inc. (“Yahoo!”) violated the First Amendment. The court remarked that this case presented a unique context for the application of free speech principles given the simultaneous occurrence of speech in different countries through the use of the Internet.
     In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on well-settled First Amendment law to declare that while France could regulate speech occurring in France consistent with its cultural and social values, it could not regulate speech that impermissibly violates the First Amendment by imposing content or viewpoint-based regulations on speech that also occurs within U.S. borders. On this basis, the court refused to enforce the French order attempting to regulate speech— however offensive—occurring in the United States, despite its simultaneous occurrence in France.
     The court carefully explained that its decision did not involve a determination of the moral acceptability of the speech because of the sensitivities implicated in the decision of whether to enforce another nation’s orders, particularly given the repugnant nature of the speech at issue. In fact, the court showed great respect towards France’s effort to provide a mechanism to quash such speech in light of the horrific suffering inflicted by those espousing Nazi views. However, the court stated that while honorable, such efforts effectively imposed content-based regulations which, on balance, are overridden by the free speech protections built into the First Amendment.
     This Case Note examines the court’s reasoning for refusing to enforce the French order prohibiting Yahoo! from selling or displaying Nazi related propaganda and artifacts on and through the use of its Web site.

    amendment court first french licra order speech state yahoo

Volume 19
Issue 2
Page 549

 Download the article.