6 ms·

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 on

by HeXetic 13y ago

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?

hobzy 13y ago
Erm, ask the US?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- yread 13y ago
  US doesn't need courts to deal out the punishments
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Yeah, was wondering that myself. Quite ironic that small fact being utterly missed in all this. 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?
  - darkarmani 13y ago
    > And then he has the sheer cheek to talk about insane French law. Hello USA? The go to place for mad law? 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.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    Why would anyone, upon receiving a letter from a foreign country in a language they do not understand, spend any time at all trying to get it translated? I'd just toss it in the trash, since someone obviously screwed up and sent me a message intended for someone else.
    - icebraining 13y ago
      From TFA: I received one more express letter from France, in English, telling me subsequent letters would be in French (...)
  - antiterra 13y ago
    The suggestion that a Google translation of a legal document is reliable is preposterous. Aside from the expected stilted mangling. pronouns are regularly confused and it's not uncommon for something to come across with the exact opposite of it's intended meaning because a negative modifier or idiom is missed. Maybe let go of some of that righteous internet rage and go for a walk.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    > And then he has the sheer cheek to talk about insane French law. Hello USA? The go to place for mad law? 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.
shrikant 13y ago
Courts in France have never bothered about jurisdiction when it comes to the Internet. See [1] and [2], for e.g. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo! [2] http://news.yahoo.com/french-court-google-must-drop-9-mosley-sex-190236947--finance.html http://news.yahoo.com/french-court-google-must-drop-9-mosley...
- aroch 13y ago
  Ehh, Google has meaningful ties to France; ie. they do business there. Google Paris 8 Rue de Londres 75009 Paris
- nandhp 13y ago
  Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#France (Although I'm not sure any courts were involved in that)
  - nraynaud 13y ago
    There was actually less than any court involved there, any rogue policeman could do that, somehow it's not even a censorship problem but a more general procedural problem that happened to involve censorship. The poor guy didn't know that you should always call a lawyer and not listen to the police when you're detained (they tell people calling a lawyer will result in longer detainment).
Hermel 13y ago
Maybe the French are fed up with US judges doing this all the time and this is some kind of revenge?
- rayiner 13y ago
  But U.S. judges don't do this all the time. Meanwhile, a number of European countries (notably the U.K.) are famous for dragging foreigners into defamation cases for conduct that happened entirely outside the country. The U.S. tends to invoke jurisdiction only when you do something quite targeted at the U.S.
  - octo_t 13y ago
    Kim Dotcom?
    - wil421 13y ago
      That wasnt a defamation case they were trying to bring him to court for copyright and online piracy violations.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      Aside from the fact that he made most of his money hosting infringing copies of American content, and serving ads to subscribers in the America, there was the more basic hook that he hosted some of the infringing content on servers in Virginia. 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).
      - wpietri 13y ago
        That seems essentially similar to the view of the French body here: if somebody somewhere harms somebody in our country, we can go after them, without regard to the law elsewhere.
lxa478 13y ago
There would be enough jurisdiction to arrest the guy if he happened to travel to France though. Maybe not enough to have any charges stick, but probably enough to make his life misérables.
Xylakant 13y ago
What do you mean by "no jurisdiction over someone?" If a crime was committed in france they can ask for extradition. That would probably not result in anything in this case, but as long as it's a crime by french law committed in france the case may as well be valid. So all the court will check whether a punishable crime was committed in france. They could collect the fine when the blogger enters france or maybe, depending on the case, the european union or an associated state.
- salient 13y ago
  > If a crime was committed in france they can ask for extradition. 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."
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    France could just be following in the footsteps of the O'Dwyer case.
  - Xylakant 13y ago
    > "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?
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      I don't understand the point of your hypothetical. A murder that physically took place in the USA is clearly "committed in the USA".
cpa 13y ago
It's a bit more subtle. French judges consider that they have jurisdiction if one of the party is in France or (for internet-related things) if the intended public is french. See LICRA vs Yahoo! linked in another comment.
- HeXetic 13y ago
  But the intended public wasn't French in this case? The guy is an English-language blogger.
  - Spidler 13y ago
    If _one_ of the parties. In this case, the bank.
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      But they weren't a party until they sued; you're saying that France claims jurisdiction whenever a French national sues anyone anywhere in the world over any action?
- wpietri 13y ago
  How very... American of them.
aktiur 13y ago
It is a peculiarity of French administrative law. It's not a court that fined Mish, but an Autorité Administrative Indépendante (AAI or independent administrative authority, but I'm sure you did not need the translation) with the power to fine people (there are only a few). 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.

by HeXetic 13y ago

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?

hobzy 13y ago

Erm, ask the US?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
yread 13y ago
US doesn't need courts to deal out the punishments
alan_cx 13y ago
Yeah, was wondering that myself. Quite ironic that small fact being utterly missed in all this. 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?
- darkarmani 13y ago
  > And then he has the sheer cheek to talk about insane French law. Hello USA? The go to place for mad law? 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.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  Why would anyone, upon receiving a letter from a foreign country in a language they do not understand, spend any time at all trying to get it translated? I'd just toss it in the trash, since someone obviously screwed up and sent me a message intended for someone else.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    From TFA: I received one more express letter from France, in English, telling me subsequent letters would be in French (...)
- antiterra 13y ago
  The suggestion that a Google translation of a legal document is reliable is preposterous. Aside from the expected stilted mangling. pronouns are regularly confused and it's not uncommon for something to come across with the exact opposite of it's intended meaning because a negative modifier or idiom is missed. Maybe let go of some of that righteous internet rage and go for a walk.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  > And then he has the sheer cheek to talk about insane French law. Hello USA? The go to place for mad law? 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.

shrikant 13y ago

Courts in France have never bothered about jurisdiction when it comes to the Internet. See [1] and [2], for e.g. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo! [2] http://news.yahoo.com/french-court-google-must-drop-9-mosley-sex-190236947--finance.html http://news.yahoo.com/french-court-google-must-drop-9-mosley...

aroch 13y ago
Ehh, Google has meaningful ties to France; ie. they do business there. Google Paris 8 Rue de Londres 75009 Paris
nandhp 13y ago
Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#France http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_of_Wikipedia#France (Although I'm not sure any courts were involved in that)
- nraynaud 13y ago
  There was actually less than any court involved there, any rogue policeman could do that, somehow it's not even a censorship problem but a more general procedural problem that happened to involve censorship. The poor guy didn't know that you should always call a lawyer and not listen to the police when you're detained (they tell people calling a lawyer will result in longer detainment).

Hermel 13y ago

Maybe the French are fed up with US judges doing this all the time and this is some kind of revenge?

rayiner 13y ago
But U.S. judges don't do this all the time. Meanwhile, a number of European countries (notably the U.K.) are famous for dragging foreigners into defamation cases for conduct that happened entirely outside the country. The U.S. tends to invoke jurisdiction only when you do something quite targeted at the U.S.
- octo_t 13y ago
  Kim Dotcom?
  - wil421 13y ago
    That wasnt a defamation case they were trying to bring him to court for copyright and online piracy violations.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Aside from the fact that he made most of his money hosting infringing copies of American content, and serving ads to subscribers in the America, there was the more basic hook that he hosted some of the infringing content on servers in Virginia. 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).
    - wpietri 13y ago
      That seems essentially similar to the view of the French body here: if somebody somewhere harms somebody in our country, we can go after them, without regard to the law elsewhere.

lxa478 13y ago

There would be enough jurisdiction to arrest the guy if he happened to travel to France though. Maybe not enough to have any charges stick, but probably enough to make his life misérables.

Xylakant 13y ago

What do you mean by "no jurisdiction over someone?" If a crime was committed in france they can ask for extradition. That would probably not result in anything in this case, but as long as it's a crime by french law committed in france the case may as well be valid. So all the court will check whether a punishable crime was committed in france. They could collect the fine when the blogger enters france or maybe, depending on the case, the european union or an associated state.

salient 13y ago
> If a crime was committed in france they can ask for extradition. 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."
- nitrogen 13y ago
  France could just be following in the footsteps of the O'Dwyer case.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  > "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?
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    I don't understand the point of your hypothetical. A murder that physically took place in the USA is clearly "committed in the USA".

cpa 13y ago

It's a bit more subtle. French judges consider that they have jurisdiction if one of the party is in France or (for internet-related things) if the intended public is french. See LICRA vs Yahoo! linked in another comment.

HeXetic 13y ago
But the intended public wasn't French in this case? The guy is an English-language blogger.
- Spidler 13y ago
  If _one_ of the parties. In this case, the bank.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    But they weren't a party until they sued; you're saying that France claims jurisdiction whenever a French national sues anyone anywhere in the world over any action?
wpietri 13y ago
How very... American of them.

aktiur 13y ago

It is a peculiarity of French administrative law. It's not a court that fined Mish, but an Autorité Administrative Indépendante (AAI or independent administrative authority, but I'm sure you did not need the translation) with the power to fine people (there are only a few). 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.