Journal of Business Ethics

, Volume 106, Issue 3, pp 353–365

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



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.


Internet Yahoo! Nazi memorabilia Corporate social responsibility (CSR) Business ethics 


  1. Akdeniz, Y. (2008). Internet child pornography and the law. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  2. Aly, G., Heim, S., & Blunden, A. G. (2003). Architects of annihilation: Auschwitz and the logic of destruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. Associated Press. (2000a, July 25). Groups sue Yahoo! over sale of Nazi objects in France. St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Missouri), A5.Google Scholar
  5. Associated Press. (2000b, November 21). Yahoo loses court ruling in France. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin), 3D.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, C. E. (1992). Human liberty and freedom of speech. New York: Oxford Press.Google Scholar
  7. Barendt, E. (2007). Freedom of speech. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Black, H. L. (1960). The bill of rights. New York University Law Review, 35, 865–881.Google Scholar
  10. Bollinger, L. C. (1986). The tolerant society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibilities of the businessman. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, D. (2011, March 22). Opinion: ‘No law’ means ‘no law’ when it comes to protecting NPR and the First Amendment. First Amendment Coalition.
  13. 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
  14. Brustein, W. I. (2003). Roots of hate: Anti-semitism in Europe before the Holocaust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burleigh, M., & Wippermann, W. (1993). The racial state: Germany 1933–1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, T., & Miller, S. (Eds.). (2004). Human rights and the moral responsibilities of corporate and public sector organizations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  17. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 4, 497–505.Google Scholar
  18. Carroll, A. B. (1981). Business and society: Managing corporate social performance. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  19. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, 39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2011). Business and society: Ethics and stakeholder management. New York: South-Western College Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Cohen-Almagor, R. (1993). Harm principle, offence principle, and the Skokie affair. Political Studies, XLI(3), 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cohen-Almagor, R. (1994). The boundaries of liberty and tolerance. Gainesville, FL: The University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  24. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2005). Speech, media and ethics. Houndmills: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2006). The scope of tolerance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2007). The democratic “catch”: Free speech and its limits. Tel Aviv: Maariv Publication House (Hebrew).Google Scholar
  27. Cohen-Almagor, R. (2010). Countering hate on the Internet—a rejoinder. Amsterdam Law Forum, 2(2), 125–132.Google Scholar
  28. Commission for Racial Equality. (1985/1992). Reviews of the race relations act.Google Scholar
  29. Commission for Racial Equality, Fairness for All. Reviews of the race relations act.
  30. 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
  31. Crane, A. (Ed.). (2009). The Oxford handbook of corporate social responsibility. Oxford Handbooks Online.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. Cue, E. (2001, January 10). National boundaries: Latest frontier in cyberspace. Christian Science Monitor, 1.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Davis, K. (1973). The case for and against business assumption of social responsibilities. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 312–322.
  36. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2004). Understanding words that wound. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  37. Dembart, L. (2000, May 29). Boundaries on Nazi sites remain unsettled in Internet’s global village. International Herald Tribune.
  38. 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
  39. Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy. (2006). Working party on the information economy.
  40. Dworkin, R. (1985). A matter of principle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Editorial. (2001, January 13). A web of thought control. Chicago Tribune, 22.Google Scholar
  43. Egelko, B. (2005, February 11). Yahoo getting new hearing on posting Nazi items. The San Francisco Chronicle, C3.Google Scholar
  44. Ehrenreich, E. (2007). The Nazi ancestral proof: Genealogy, racial science, and the final solution. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Emerson, T. I. (1970). The system of freedom of expression. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  46. Essick, K. (2000, November 21). Judge to Yahoo: Block Nazi goods from French. PCWorld.
  47. Fannon, I. L. (2003). Working within two kinds of capitalism. Portland, OR: Hart.Google Scholar
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. 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
  51. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2001). Artificial evil and the foundation of computer ethics. Ethics and Information Technology, 3(1), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. Goldhagen, D. J. (2009). Worse than war: Genocide, eliminationism, and the ongoing assault on humanity. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  55. Goldsmith, J., & Wu, T. (2006). Who controls the Internet? Illusions of a borderless world. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Guernsey, L. (2001, March 15). Welcome to the web. Passport, please? New York Times.
  58. Hamdani, A. (2002, May). Who’s liable for cyberwrongs? Cornell Law Review, 87, 901–957.
  59. Heyman, S. J. (2008). Free speech and human dignity. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Hilberg, R. (1985). The destruction of the European Jews. New York: Holmes and Meier.Google Scholar
  61. Home Office. (1975, September). Racial discrimination. White Paper, Commd. 6234.Google Scholar
  62. 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
  63. Internet extremism growing in Germany. (2010, August 26). Hate Monitor Net.
  64. 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
  65. Jones, T. D. (1998). Human rights: Group defamation, freedom of expression and the law of nations. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  66. Kerr, M., Janda, R., & Pitts, C. (2009). Corporate social responsibility—a legal analysis. Markham, ON: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
  67. Kershaw, I. (2009). Hitler, the Germans, and the final solution. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  68. 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
  69. Kohl, U. (2007). Jurisdiction and the Internet: A study of regulatory competence over online activity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Konvitz, M. R. (1963). First amendment freedoms. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  72. Kuchinskas, S. (2005, March 23). Google axes hate news.
  73. 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.
  74. 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.
  75. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  78. Levmore, S., & Nussbaum, M. C. (Eds.). (2010). The offensive Internet: Speech, privacy, and reputation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  79. Lewis, S. (2003). Reputation and corporate responsibility. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 356–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. LICRA and UEJF v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France. (2000, November 20). Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris.
  81. LICRA v. Yahoo! Inc. and Yahoo! France. (2000, May 22). Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris.Google Scholar
  82. Love, B. (2000, August 11). Auctions of Nazi gear may yet cost Yahoo! The Seattle Times, C6.Google Scholar
  83. 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
  84. Martin, E. W. (1961). The tyranny of the majority. London: Pall Mall Press.Google Scholar
  85. Matsuda, M. J., et al. (1993). Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  86. McCullagh, D. (2002, October 23). Google excluding controversial sites. CNET News.Google Scholar
  87. McGroarty, P. (2009, July 10). Germany calls for ban of neo-Nazi sites abroad. The Sydney Morning Herald.
  88. McQuail, D. (2003). Media accountability and freedom of publication. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  89. Meiklejohn, A. (1965). Political freedom. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Meiklejohn, A. (1966). Freedom of speech. In P. Radcliff (Ed.), Limits of liberty (pp. 19–26). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  91. Mosse, G. L. (1997). Toward the final solution: A history of European racism. New York: Howard Fertig.Google Scholar
  92. 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
  93. Online Auction of Nazi items sparks debate issue: National laws on global Web. (2000, July 25). San Jose Mercury News. Google Scholar
  94. Painter-Morland, M. (2011). Business ethics as practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Piazza, P. (2001). Yahoo! must prevent French from accessing Nazi memorabilia auction sites. Security Management, 45(2), 38.Google Scholar
  96. 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
  97. Radin, D. (2001, January 11). Yahoo! Auction is right to ban Nazi goods. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (Pennsylvania), F3.Google Scholar
  98. Ramasastry, A. (2003, February 6). Can Europe block racist web sites from its borders? Scholar
  99. Reidenberg, J. R. (2005). Technology and Internet jurisdiction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1959.
  100. Reuters. (2000a, November 21). French court tells Yahoo to block Nazi auction sites. Orlando Sentinel (Florida), B1.Google Scholar
  101. Reuters. (2000b, November 22). Yahoo! stock plunges to lowest level since ’98. Orlando Sentinel (Florida), B5.Google Scholar
  102. Reuters. (2002, February 27). Yahoo headed for trial in France. The New York Times, C4.Google Scholar
  103. Sadurski, W. (1999). Freedom of speech and its limits. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Schauer, F. (1982). Free speech: A philosophical enquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  105. Scheeres, J. (2002, November 9). European outlaw net hate speech. Wired News.Google Scholar
  106. Sereny, G. (1983). Into that darkness: An examination of conscience. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  107. Shapiro, M. (1966). Freedom of speech. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  108. Shea, C. (2006, January 15). Sovereignty in cyberspace. The Boston Globe, K4.Google Scholar
  109. Smolla, R. A. (1993). Free speech in an open society. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  110. Supperstone, M. (1981). Brownlie’s law of public order and national security. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  111. The Internet’s new borders. (2001, August 11). The Economist.Google Scholar
  112. Thornburgh, D., & Lin, H. S. (Eds.). (2002). Youth, pornography, and the Internet. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  113. Tsesis, A. (2002a). Destructive messages: How hate speech paves the way for harmful social movements. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Tsesis, A. (2002b). Prohibiting incitement on the Internet. Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 7(2), 5.
  115. Tsesis, A. (2009). Dignity and speech: The regulation of hate speech in a democracy. Wake Forest Law Review, 44, 497–532.Google Scholar
  116. Union des Etudiants Juifs de France. (2001, February 1). TGI Paris: November 20, 2000, Ord. ref., J.C.P. 2000, Actu., 2219.Google Scholar
  117. Vick, D. W. (2005). Regulating hatred. In M. Klang & A. Murray (Eds.), Human rights in the digital age. London: GlassHouse.Google Scholar
  118. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.Google Scholar
  119. Waldron, J. (2010). Dignity and defamation: The visibility of hate. Harvard Law Review, 123, 1596–1657.Google Scholar
  120. Werther, W. B., & Chandler, D. B. (2010). Strategic corporate social responsibility: Stakeholders in a global environment. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  121. Wistrich, R. S. (2010). A lethal obsession: Anti-semitism from antiquity to the global jihad. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  122. Wolverton, T., & Pelline, J. (2001, January 2). Yahoo! to charge auction fees, ban hate materials. CNet
  123. Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme Yahoo! Inc. (2001, November 7). 169 F. Supp. 2d 1181; 2001 US Dist. Lexis 18378.Google Scholar
  124. 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).Google Scholar
  125. Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA and UEJF, 379 F 3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2004).Google Scholar
  126. Yahoo! Inc. v. LICRA and UEJF, 433 F 3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2006).Google Scholar
  127. Yahoo! Ruling Exposes Risks of Being Global. (2000, July 1). Internet World.Google Scholar
  128. Yahoo! sued for Nazi-item auctions.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International StudiesUniversity of HullHullUK

Personalised recommendations