The global proliferation of the Internet, given the ease with which it permits transnational communication, calls into question the applicability of traditional territorial legal systems in governing its use. Conflict-of-laws instruments and the regulation of speech are two thorny areas of concern in this vein that interrelate in a 2006 case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States, Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme. Yahoo! offers an entry point, through its bearing on conflict-of-laws and freedom of speech jurisprudence, into examining the appropriateness of traditional legal schemes to the task of regulating Internet-enabled conduct. Focusing on the substantive issues in Yahoo!, this paper takes up the adequacy of traditional conflict-of-laws instruments as regards Internet-enabled conduct, possible alternatives to the use of conflict-of-laws instruments to regulate Internet-enabled conduct, the applicability and weight of the French law against the First Amendment in a United States court, and, finally, the possibility of developing a common core of global values regarding speech on the Internet.