If I was a United States Judge, I could rule the same way. I base my judgment on the argument that Yahoo US had insisted that the changes in policy with regards the “hate” artifacts sale were not in any way associated with the French case. Following this, Yahoo was not in a position to justify that their speech had been chilled. Consequently, there was no actual controversy.
I would also take into consideration the lack of interest from the two other parties involved; UEJF and LICRA of pursuing the penalties. Yahoo on its side could not have believed that, if UEJF and LICRA asked for penalties that any court in the United States would have gone along with this as any court in the United States was likely to reject that kind of judgment (Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme 2001).
The three factors that in mostly considered included
- UEJF and LICRA must have availed themselves purposely of the right to carry out some of the transactions that were based in the United States, to some level acknowledging how the US law was protecting them.
- This claim must have resulted out of the activities of UEJK and LICRA activities within the United States
iii. The last one being that any claim of jurisdiction has to be reasonable
Some of the Internet controls that should continue to be used by governments or companies include the First Amendment and the California public policy that call for restricted access to group sites by Internet users. The controls are sensitive to harm that is likely to arise from the chilling effects on expressive conduct or protected speech. The courts in the respective nations should also pass rulings that discourage such cases from being witnessed in future (Yahoo!, Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme 2001)