4 ms·

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

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".
darkarmani 13y ago
> it's a crime by french law committed in france Did you miss the part where it was an American blogger? It wasn't committed in france.
- Xylakant 13y ago
  The location where the crime occured on the internet is often defined as "is this website reachable in this region" which is basically true for all websites. It's a stupid concept, right, but that's true in germany as well. Make a website, make it in german, target german audiences and german courts can make that their jurisdiction. American courts often apply the same pattern when a .com domain is involved. See the latest round of ICE freezes.
cantankerous 13y ago
> it's a crime by french law committed in france Was this actually a crime or just a civil dispute?
- aktiur 13y ago
  Neither criminal nor civil! French has a separate body of law called public law that includes administrative law. 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.
declan 13y ago
France has no jurisdiction. U.S. courts will not enforce this civil judgment. Our 1A precludes them from doing so. And the blogger in question said he's not going to France. (BTW, a civil judgment is not "a crime by French law.")
- aktiur 13y ago
  It was not a civil judgment but a public one handled by an independant administrative authority with the power to pronounce sanctions (French public law is separate from both criminal and civil law and includes administrative 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.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    >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. 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.
  - declan 13y ago
    It is all about free speech. Publishing incorrect information about the financial situation of a bank (in the way Mish did it, and even assuming it's incorrect) is protected by the First Amendment in the United States. But it is not in France. See NYT v. Sullivan and the separate but related concept of "neutral reportage."
- Xylakant 13y ago

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".

darkarmani 13y ago

> it's a crime by french law committed in france Did you miss the part where it was an American blogger? It wasn't committed in france.

Xylakant 13y ago
The location where the crime occured on the internet is often defined as "is this website reachable in this region" which is basically true for all websites. It's a stupid concept, right, but that's true in germany as well. Make a website, make it in german, target german audiences and german courts can make that their jurisdiction. American courts often apply the same pattern when a .com domain is involved. See the latest round of ICE freezes.

cantankerous 13y ago

> it's a crime by french law committed in france Was this actually a crime or just a civil dispute?

aktiur 13y ago
Neither criminal nor civil! French has a separate body of law called public law that includes administrative law. 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.

declan 13y ago

France has no jurisdiction. U.S. courts will not enforce this civil judgment. Our 1A precludes them from doing so. And the blogger in question said he's not going to France. (BTW, a civil judgment is not "a crime by French law.")

aktiur 13y ago
It was not a civil judgment but a public one handled by an independant administrative authority with the power to pronounce sanctions (French public law is separate from both criminal and civil law and includes administrative 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.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  >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. 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.
- declan 13y ago
  It is all about free speech. Publishing incorrect information about the financial situation of a bank (in the way Mish did it, and even assuming it's incorrect) is protected by the First Amendment in the United States. But it is not in France. See NYT v. Sullivan and the separate but related concept of "neutral reportage."
Xylakant 13y ago