I don't understand how this court system can be so silly as to fail to recognize that it has no jurisdiction over someone. Isn't the question of jurisdiction one of the first steps in any court case?
They could collect the fine when the blogger enters france or maybe, depending on the case, the european union or an associated state.
But it wasn't "committed in France". This is getting ridiculous, not to mention extremely dangerous. A few more cases of these from the "democracies" of the world, and soon China will start demanding the same thing.
"You said something bad about China online? We're just going to fine you, or ask for your extradition and arrest."
Sure, that can happen. China can and might ask for extradition. This is however a different question from whether the USA will extradite. Extradition is usually denied in cases where the action in question was not a crime in the country that you're asking to extradite.
Think about it: A German commits a murder in the USA which is discovered only after he returns to Germany. Does your "no jurisdiction" line of reasoning still apply?
Did you miss the part where it was an American blogger? It wasn't committed in france.
(BTW, a civil judgment is not "a crime by French law.")
It is not so much about free speech: the two guys have been fined for publishing incorrect information about the financial situation of a bank. It is more about financial regulation than free speech. I'm not so familiar with american law, but I'm pretty sure you got related situations (for example concerning the handling of sensitive financial information, or insider trading, etc.)
Disregarding the question of the reality of what they've been accused of, the fine against Mish is illegal considering the right of defendants to translation and an interpretor has not been respected. This decision will be very probably striken down by any real judge that get her hands on this case.
We have laws that apply to stakeholders and insiders. As far as I know third parties are free to say or even make up anything they want, as long as it's not fraud or libel.
E.g. I'm Norwegian - Norway claims jurisdiction for certain types of crimes worldwide for Norwegian citizens (quite a few other countries do too).
Enforcability is entirely separate from jurisdiction.
These two things are totally unrelated and I never said the lather would happen.
Was this actually a crime or just a civil dispute?
In this case, the fine was pronounced by an independent administrative authority in charge of the regulation of financial markets. No judge was involved in the sentencing.
Basically, if he appeals, it will very probably be overturned by a proper judge. Another AAI in charge of the regulation of the telecommunications sector got striken badly by a decision of our Constitutionnal court (no less) which suppressed its power to pronounce sanctions, judging the protection of the rights of defence was not effective. It's going to end the same way here I would say.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!
[2] http://news.yahoo.com/french-court-google-must-drop-9-mosley...
Google Paris
8 Rue de Londres
75009 ParisHow many time did I see "SUSPECTED Al-Quaida member and his family and some of his neighbors were killed in an explosion while a drone coincidentally flew over his house" in the news this month? I lost count.
A few points:
* French are fed up with US agencies, nothing against US judges.
* This was a civil deliberation, and will probably be nuked if said blogger make appeal.
* That regulator have no way to enforce their decision.
* Yes, this judgment is beyond ridiculous.
* Yes, the AMF should be disbanded (if they are as corrupt as they seem) or need a severe shake (in the case they are 'just' dangerously outdated).
How does this relate? Bombing someone in a foreign country is not an exercise of legal jurisdiction. It's an exercise of a country's sovereign right to exercise military power abroad.
There are two ways to interact with a country. If you're within its legal jurisdiction, you act through legal process. This is where words like "suspected" versus "guilty" have meaning. The other way is the interactions in the state of nature. This is a state of war.
That's the problem most of the copyright infringement sites have. They deal primarily in content that is produced by Americans and considered a property right in America. The U.S. wouldn't give a shit if they were just trading foreign music and movies to each other. Even then, it was e.g. the Swedes that went after Pirate Bay (based on a criminal complaint filed by the MPAA in Sweden).
> do something quite targeted at the U.S.
You realize that those are two different measuring sticks?
Also like the anti French language ignorance. The letter came in French and the recipient couldn't be arsed to spend a few mins on google translate, and some how we are supposed to have some sympathy. On top of that, he also says that he knew there was a legal thing happening, so subsequent letters in French should have got his attention.
And then he has the sheer cheek to talk about insane French law. Hello USA? The go to place for mad law?
This whole thing to me reeks of both ignorance and arrogance.
Not saying the scenario is great, but come on HN. Balance? Or are we still in Freedom Fries mode?
The US doesn't have insane libel law. Obviously France and the UK do. You can get sued for make factual statements and expect to lose in those countries. It doesn't get any crazier than that.
I received one more express letter from France, in English, telling me subsequent letters would be in French (...)
Maybe let go of some of that righteous internet rage and go for a walk.
Insane laws in one place do not make laws in another place any less insane. If we universalized your attitude towards criticism, then only those blessed to live in utopias would have the privilege of leveling complaints at other systems.