The Ninth Circuit at long last has issued its en banc opinion in the case of Yahoo Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme, an event that has caused surprisingly little comment in the blogosphere given the case's long-recognized significance for several different fields: personal jurisdiction, Internet law, First Amendment law, and conflicts of law. Perhaps it's just that the en banc decision seems a bit anticlimactic after what preceded it: two long and thoughtful district court opinions, followed by a fiery reversal (and fiery dissent) by the original Ninth Circuit panel. Nevertheless, I expect the Ninth Circuit opinion to be the end of the line for this issue. Yahoo! is possibly the most crazily splintered circuit court opinions I've ever seen (and it certainly doesn't break down on liberal/conservative lines!), and I can't imagine the Supreme Court wanting to take this one on. Further, for all the juicy issues involved, the Ninth Circuit (or at least the three-judge controlling opinion) chose to decide this one on the most modest prudential grounds imaginable. But the issue of how First Amendment values can and should be preserved when U.S.-based websites try to establish a presence in countries with more restrictive speech policies remains a potent one. Some related policy issues - although without the First Amendment angle - have already arisen with respect to the activities of U.S. ISPs and content providers in China.
