French Court Rules That Facebook Can Now Be Sued in France (thestack.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

French Court Rules That Facebook Can Now Be Sued in France (thestack.com)

Posted by yaelk on Friday February 12, 2016 @09:41AM from the the-french-didnt-surrender dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A Paris court of appeal has ruled in favor of a French complainant whose account was suspended, because he linked to an image of the 1866 Gustav Courbet nude 'L'Origine du monde', currently residing at the Musee d'Orsay. The appeals court not only agreed that the user's suspension by Facebook constitutes censorship, but the ruling itself negates Facebook's insistence that all legal challenges take place in its native California.

145 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Well... by Frosty+Piss · 2016-02-12 09:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

Facebook could have just put a fig leaf over the offending parts...

--
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
1. Re:Well... by MightyMartian · 2016-02-12 09:45 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Much like Italy covered up all those naughty Renaissance and classical nudes for the Iranian delegation, because, you know, genitals are EVIL!!!!!!!!!
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
2. Re:Well... by stephanruby · 2016-02-12 10:17 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Facebook could have just put a fig leaf over the offending parts...
  For the puritanical Americans and for the Middle East.
  For everyone else, they could have just left the image as is.
3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  Fuck sensitive morons who are offended by reality. Kill all those fuckers. Being offended is for victims who deserve to die.
4. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 13:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Fuck sensitive morons who are offended by reality. Kill all those fuckers. Being offended is for victims who deserve to die.
  Yes. Let's kill all intolerant bastards. Anyone who wants to kill other people for their views deserves to die. Oh wai^#$%#@@ CARRIER LOST
5. Re:Well... by penguinoid · 2016-02-12 14:45 · Score: 1
  
  In this case, the only reason that the picture isn't treated as hardcore pornography is because it was drawn by a famous artist a long time ago. Which, if you think about it, who drew a picture and when they drew it have basically nothing to do with what a picture is.
  
  --
  Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
6. Re:Well... by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2016-02-12 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  Oh the irony!
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
7. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 17:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  the only reason that the picture isn't treated as hardcore pornography is because ...
  A woman's genital area isn't in itself hardcore pornography in France? I mean, really, it's absurd the very picture of a nude person should in itself be consider pornography of any kind, no matter how much of a close up, how much "insertion" is going on, etc. But then that boils down to the point that it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. The more "close ups of a woman's vagina" are pornography, the more people will intend to make "pictures with close ups of a woman's vagina" for sexual arousal. Treat it normally and most (if not all) the effect is lost.
  I mean, the whole point is you have to start with "obscene", move on to "intent", and it has to be about "sexual arousal" and all bits of that are subjective except the intent. Well, then, if intent is the most important part, we really should ban most people because a lot of people intend to invoke sexual arousal in others in merely being in public and prurient people view near everyone as obscene in dress. I mean, that's the insanity that created the hijab, not Islam.
8. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 22:58 · Score: 0
  
  It is likely to be not even softcore in France.
9. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  Sure wish women look like that again.
10. Re:Well... by Joce640k · 2016-02-13 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure they'd put it on a bus stop, even in France.
  (Yes, they put topless women on bus stop adverts there)
  
  --
  No sig today...
11. Re:Well... by Carewolf · 2016-02-13 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook could have just put a fig leaf over the offending parts...
  It is not the censorship that has been ruled on yet. It is the stupid EULA that claimed you had to sue them in California. That is just too stupid and embarresing for any fig leaf to cover.
12. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 09:14 · Score: 0
  
  I'm not sure they'd put it on a bus stop, even in France.
  (Yes, they put topless women on bus stop adverts there)
  
  Probably not. In no way am I saying France is so liberal. But then the point is more that topless women aren't seen as softcore porn in France. It's not that they're so liberal to show porn in bus stop adverts. Meanwhile, in an ideal world a woman's vagina wouldn't be seen as porn either. *shrug* Like a lot of things, that'd require a significant culture shift, so I really don't expect it to happen.
13. Re:Well... by RockDoctor · 2016-02-14 12:25 · Score: 1
  
  If you think that is "hardcore", then you really have some eye-opening to do.
  I am almost tempted to link to that famous email service, goatse.cx
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by bev_tech_rob · 2016-02-12 09:45 · Score: -1, Troll

Tired of hearing about France suing this and France suing that!

--
You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
1. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · 2016-02-12 09:47 · Score: 2
  
  This is one of those extremely rare times where we hear about someone outside of the U.S.A. suing a company.
2. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by 110010001000 · 2016-02-12 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Someone doesn't get out much....the French are famous for suing companies.
3. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by SvnLyrBrto · 2016-02-12 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  Or simply shutdown facebook.fr and the users will just goto facebook.com. It's not like Facebook is netflix and will suffering crippling latency if French users' bits have to go through a cable under the ocean.
  
  --
  Imagine all the people...
4. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  And don't forget stop to make business in France (no more adds for French companies).
5. Re: Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by yacc143 · 2016-02-12 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  The EU. Consumers can sue EU companies in their home country.
6. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by rtb61 · 2016-02-12 10:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The only principle here is, if a business is generating revenue in a country, then that revenue can be targeted in a civil suit. The company can not turn around and claim somehow that it should be allowed to make money in a country but simultaneously not be held accountable for how it makes money in that country. To pretend to claim so is just so much legal bullshit. It is bad enough when you have global tax fraud on trillions of dollars of income and the pain, death and suffering that causes in the crippling of social services and the break down of infrastructure, now they are corruptly fighting to not be held legally accountable for their actions when they are done by remote control. All the money and no responsibility, corporations are behaving like out of control toddlers, screaming for more all of the time now.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
7. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 11:31 · Score: 0
  
  And going on strike.
8. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by fluffernutter · 2016-02-12 11:47 · Score: 1
  
  I am truly shockd that no one has called you a communist yet. Corporations are important!
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
9. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 13:15 · Score: 0
  
  Not at the same time though, that's been tried by the Italians but they never got it to work.
10. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by manu0601 · 2016-02-12 13:49 · Score: 1
  
  And going on strike.
  If you lookup ILO numbers, you see that french workers go on strike less than EU average. The point is that french strike are often massive, national-scale and aimed at the government, which make them very visible.
11. Re: Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 00:55 · Score: 0
  
  Facebook is not a European company. They have infrastructure in some European contours, that's it.
12. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  The French sometimes strike for silly nonsense.
  For example: Makers of cheap Frog wine (vin Ordinair) went 'on strike' to protest that they were being put out of business by better cheap wine from overseas.
  Think about that. Your product is crap, you customers prefer a cheaper better product. Do you: (Adopt the technology that is making cheap wine better OR Go on strike)? If you're frogish, strike it is.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
13. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Easily solved by making Frog advertisers buy their Facebook ads in another country.
  I suppose the frogs could go after the advertisers. But they really prefer to sue overseas companies.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
14. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by manu0601 · 2016-02-13 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  If the problem is competition from foreign workers with much lower wages, it makes sense to ask the government to use tariffs or taxes to average competition. After all, the government is supposed to be there to protect its citizens.
15. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by spongman · 2016-02-14 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  french advertisers should pay for their ads in a different country, then. and forgo french taxes, too.
16. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by HornWumpus · 2016-02-15 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  No, the problem is that the likes of E&J have made making cheep industrial scale wine into a science. It's much better than is was even 20 years ago.
  The frog cheap wine makers still do it the old fashioned way, right down to an average 2 flies per bottle in the sediment.
  With robotic pickers, wine making isn't labor intensive at all.
  The fact is that 200+ years ago the french were the only people who could make really good wine. Now anybody can do it and the french are reduced to babbling about slate bedrock somehow making wine better.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
17. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by manu0601 · 2016-02-15 14:11 · Score: 1
  
  I am not sure why you have an obsession with wine. Wine worker strikes are quite uncommon.
18. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by HornWumpus · 2016-02-15 15:43 · Score: 1
  
  It was an example of a crazy frog strike. Business owners can't generally strike.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
19. Re:Just geoblock France already, Facebook!!! by manu0601 · 2016-02-16 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Business owners can't generally strike
  SMB owners do sometime strike in France, when they request some action from the government. And farmers strike very often for the same reason.
Good for France. by Motherfucking+Shit · 2016-02-12 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

At a very basic level, here's the deal. If you're going to operate as a multi-national company, and you're going to offer and promote your services around the globe, then you need to be responsible for and liable to the laws of the land in each of those territories. If you operate in France and you violate the law in France, then you should be subject to penalty in France.
You don't get to shuffle all of your American tax liability through a double Dutch Sandwich with an Irish muffin, or whatever the hell it is, and simultaneously force French legal complaints to be arbitrated in California. You can't have it both ways.

--
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
1. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 09:59 · Score: 0
  
  At a very basic level, here's the deal. If you're going to operate as a multi-national company, and you're going to offer and promote your services around the globe, then you need to be responsible for and liable to the laws of the land in each of those territories. If you operate in France and you violate the law in France, then you should be subject to penalty in France.
  You don't get to shuffle all of your American tax liability through a double Dutch Sandwich with an Irish muffin, or whatever the hell it is, and simultaneously force French legal complaints to be arbitrated in California. You can't have it both ways.
  So what do you do when laws in different countries are contradictory?
  Example: Certain speech being illegal in country A, but protected in country B?
2. Re:Good for France. by xaxa · 2016-02-12 10:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Without bothering to read the article, it's probably relevant that the user in question is a resident of France, and access the site from France.
  Facebook obviously know this, as it's a key attribute used to target advertising.
3. Re: Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Pick the country you agree with and ignore the other. I know that greed will make that difficult but boo-hoo.
4. Re:Good for France. by Geoffrey.landis · 2016-02-12 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  At a very basic level, here's the deal. If you're going to operate as a multi-national company, and you're going to offer and promote your services around the globe, then you need to be responsible for and liable to the laws of the land in each of those territories..
  At the basic level, here's the deal. If you're going to operation internationally, you have to deal with jerks coming at you from both directions. Some countries are going to demand that you MUST censor this, and that, and other countries will demand that you CAN'T censor that, or the other.
  About the best you can do is to defy both of them.
  You can't please everyone.
  
  --
  http://www.geoffreylandis.com
5. Re:Good for France. by Motherfucking+Shit · 2016-02-12 10:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  So what do you do when laws in different countries are contradictory? Example: Certain speech being illegal in country A, but protected in country B?
  I suppose you have two real choices,
  1) block the speech from being seen in country A and allow it to be seen in countries B..Z
  2) remove your business operations from country A
  Take a look at Google, they've used both strategies in differing countries. Facebook itself is dealing with Belgium's ruling that they're no longer allowed to use cookies to track people who haven't signed up for the service.
  My primary point is that Facebook does everything it can to minimize its tax liability in the US by shuffling money around, pretending to be based in Ireland and Luxembourg, etc. That's all well and legal for now, but in doing so, you're no longer an American company and should not have any claim to force overseas legal complaints into American jurisdiction.
  
  --
  "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
6. Re:Good for France. by AuMatar · 2016-02-12 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  THen you don't get to oeprate in the country you're ignoring. You don't get to have it both ways. Follow their laws, get them to change their laws, or leave the country. You have no right to operate in every country.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
7. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  So what do you do when laws in different countries are contradictory?
  Example: Certain speech being illegal in country A, but protected in country B?
  If your business operates (has legal presence) in country B you have to respect its laws wether they contradict or not the laws of country A. Citizens of country B don't give a rat's ass about the laws of country A. They care wether the laws of country B (their country) are being respected by this corporation. There is no ambiguity here.
8. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:14 · Score: 0
  
  Run your servers so that they comply with that countries laws.
  Think of it like driving a car. In my country we drive on the left, if I go to the USA I must drive on the right.
  Likewise in the USA it is common to lampoon your politicians, try that in Thailand and you will go to jail.
  As the saying goes, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
  US law is relevant ONLY in the USA which only makes up 4% of the worlds population.
9. Re:Good for France. by zugmeister · 2016-02-12 10:25 · Score: 2
  
  Interesting but flawed analogy. While a road exists only in one country at a time for a given location, a site on the internet "exists" in as many countries that have a connection to the 'net. To refine your analogy to conform to this situation, suddenly the road exists in all countries at once. How do you propose to legally (everywhere) drive on both sides of the road at the same time?
10. Re:Good for France. by jedidiah · 2016-02-12 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  ...except when we don't agree with that country. Then the corporation should do everything they can to flaunt local laws and allow citizens to completely violate whatever objective that government is trying to enforce.
  I would be shocked if the hypocrisy level in this regard is any less than 100%.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
11. Re:Good for France. by SvnLyrBrto · 2016-02-12 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  The only reasonable solution is in-country subsidiaries that obey the laws of the country in which they're incorporated. So, if you goto facebook.fr you get to a site that is in compliance with French law, if you goto google.com it is in compliance with US law, twitter.cn obeys the laws of Canada, and so on.
  The other options are:
  1) No regulation at all and the internet is a 100% lawless free-for-all. And as much as that might appeal to the libertarian crowd, and as over-regulated as I personally believe the internet to be, especially with France and Spain's potshots at the likes of Facebook and Google; that's really not reasonable or feasible.
  2) Global compliance with the strictest regulation regime on any given topic. No mention or discussion of the Tiananmen Square massacre or repression of Tibet anywhere on the internet because it would be illegal in China. No porn anywhere on the internet because it's illegal in Saudi Arabia. No advocacy for marriage equality or other GLBT issues because of Russia. Obviously, this is intolerable.
  
  --
  Imagine all the people...
12. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 13:04 · Score: 0
  
  Great analogy, you basically can't do so legally, so it's up to you to fix the problem rather than demanding the law of each country be changed. Basically, it's the age old problem businesses have always faced: there are lots of things a business could do, but some of them are against the law, so the directors must decide not to do them.
  A business must operate legally or it must be shut down. There is no alternative. Fix the problem by doing one or the other, period.
  BTW, the precedent that a website must follow the laws of all countries was pioneered by the US. It already has a long tradition and won't be changed in the future. We live in a transition period during which many websites operate illegally in many places, but the authorities just haven't bothered to prosecute most infringements. In future they probably will. Plan accordingly.
13. Re:Good for France. by wisnoskij · 2016-02-12 13:21 · Score: 2
  
  So what you are saying is that since basically all content on the web is illegal somewhere everyone who hosts a website is a criminal and should go to jail? All porn must be purged, all pro homosexual content erased, and any history that does not mention that the the infinite intelligence and benevolence of Kim Jon Ill should be striked from the record?
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
14. Re:Good for France. by dryeo · 2016-02-12 13:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  twitter.cn obeys the laws of Canada
  While having the Chinese branch of twitter obeying Canadian law sounds good, I don't think China would be happy.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
15. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 13:59 · Score: 0
  
  That's fucking stupid. Unless they have datacenters or payment processors (in this case they do) in a country, they are not conducting business in that country, they are just sending communications to that country. So in the general case, a website should never be liable for the laws of other countries that they communicate with, just as you shouldn't be liable for a crime if you make a phone call to someone in a tinpot dictatorship and say something that is illegal to say in that country.
  When did people become so stupid that they think that sending communications to somewhere is the same thing as being there?
16. Re:Good for France. by ranton · 2016-02-12 15:01 · Score: 1
  
  So what do you do when laws in different countries are contradictory?
  Example: Certain speech being illegal in country A, but protected in country B?
  If there ever was a situation where it is impossible to follow the laws of two countries simultaneously, then the company simply has to decide which country to do business with. If it was impossible for Facebook to follow French law and US law, for instance, Facebook would be forced to choose which country to do business in. That means accepting no ad revenue from either US companies or French companies. It really is that simple.
  There is no universal right that a company must be allowed to do business in every country on the planet.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
17. Re:Good for France. by Rakarra · 2016-02-12 15:09 · Score: 1
  
  Without bothering to read the article, it's probably relevant that the user in question is a resident of France, and access the site from France.
  Facebook obviously know this, as it's a key attribute used to target advertising.
  It doesn't matter if the user is in France. What should matter is if the site is located in France. What matters, or at least what has mattered to this point, is that the hosting country enforces its laws upon the hosting company. Random user from random country is shit out of luck.
  So Facebook has the option of pulling out of France and shutting down facebook.fr. Which they won't do any more than they will for countries with harsher laws -- because they're about market share, and will compromise anything else to get it.
18. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 16:44 · Score: -1
  
  That eventually means that the multinationsl corporations we all know and love may not be viable in the future.
  Tough shit
  And nothing of value will be lost
19. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 17:19 · Score: 0
  
  Ah, but they're selling ads there. Thatcertainly counts as "doing business"
  Also there are court cases establishing that having your web pages in danish (or reflecting pecularities in danish law or business practice) counts as primae facia evidence that you are in fact doing business in Denmark (that of course works less well with more common languages).
  In short: There already exists various definitions of "Doing business in X country", and where the datacentres are located is VERY low on the list.
20. Re:Good for France. by KGIII · 2016-02-12 20:45 · Score: 1
  
  If I have a forum, housed in the US, and someone from France doesn't like what someone posts, on my forum that is in my country, then France can suck my nuts. I don't even care if it's a French citizen that posted it on my forum. The property belongs to me. The property is in my country. Even if I sell ads on that site, they can still suck my nuts. If France doesn't like what someone posts on my site, or what I decline to host on my site, then France can try to block their citizens from accessing my site. If they've got a problem with this, I have a nut that needs sucking.
  Just like for Taiwan, China, Australia, Russia, the UK, Canada, Mexico, Egypt, or any other country. The property, and I, are not in their country. If they don't like it, keep their citizens off my property. I will not take any step to remove offending material, disallow content types, or otherwise infringe on lawful speech as is accepted in my country.
  If I put my property in another country that property will obey the laws of that country - I will obey the laws of this country. If they don't like it, I'm sure I can find plenty of people who want their nuts sucked and that will keep them busy. It's really simple, there's no need to make it complicated. I don't give a shit if it makes money or not - I'm going to do with my property what I want to do so long as it is lawful to do so in the country that the hardware exists in. If another country doesn't like it, wants to control what my users can post, or wants to make me expend any energy I don't feel like spending - they know where to find me.
  They can block their citizens to the best of their abilities. They can write me letters. They can send me hate mail. If they irk my colo provider, I can house it at my home. If China doesn't like a dissident that posts content on my site they can piss off. If France doesn't like that I kicked out one of their citizens, they can piss off. It doesn't matter if I sell ad space or a product, they can piss off. They can stop the product at the edge of their country. That's it.
  No, I will, quite specifically, not be obeying laws from other nations even if my site can be accessed from those nations. I will not kowtow to China's censorship. I will not be forced to host content I do not want by France. I will allow non-Muslims to post so Saudi Arabia can fuck right off. I will allow women to have the same access rights to UAE can suck a camel cock. I will do what I want with my property so long as it is lawful in the nation where that property is housed. They can control their border, they can not control me.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
21. Re:Good for France. by KGIII · 2016-02-12 20:56 · Score: 1
  
  I just replied to an AC who was very much insisting that option 2 was the lawful and acceptable way. No, if my hardware is in the US then I will obey US laws. If my hardware is in France, I will obey their laws (as well as any laws applicable to me in my country). I will not put up a cookie notice - even if I sell a product or service. I will not censor because of China. I will not be forced to host something because of France. I will do what is lawful in my country - up to that point and no further.
  If a product or service that I sell is illegal in France, but legal in my country, then I will send it to people in France who order it and pay for it. If France doesn't like it, they can control their borders. If I sell a book that's illegal in China and someone from China orders it, I'll send it. If I have hardware in China, being accessed from China, then I'll obey China's censorship rules. If I have hardware in France then France can tell me what I'm allowed to do with it.
  As I said above, if they don't like it, they know where to find me.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
22. Re:Good for France. by AlterEager · 2016-02-12 21:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  It doesn't matter if the user is in France. What should matter is if the site is located in France.
  
  You don't realy get this "internet" thing, do you. What matters is not where "the site is located" (whatever that means). What matters is where the company is doing business. Facebook does business in France, French law applies.
  FACEBOOK FRANCE
  Societe 530085802
  108 AVENUE DE WAGRAM
  75017 PARIS
  FRANCE
  http://www.societe.com/societe/facebook-france-530085802.html
23. Re:Good for France. by AlterEager · 2016-02-12 21:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If I have a forum, housed in the US, and someone from France doesn't like what someone posts, on my forum that is in my country, then France can suck my nuts.
  Good for you. But that is irrelevant to the case in hand -- Facebook is a company doing business in France -- French law applies to that business.
24. Re:Good for France. by serviscope_minor · 2016-02-12 22:04 · Score: 1
  
  They don't censor posts critical of the government, they Zamboni over them until they disappear.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
25. Re:Good for France. by GNious · 2016-02-12 22:13 · Score: 1
  
  Chose which one you want to do business in? No-one is forcing Facebook to do business in every single country.
  And, before you cry "but, Internet is global", observe that Facebook specifically has a business-unit (legal entity) in France, which is what matters here.
26. Re: Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 00:58 · Score: 0
  
  OK so the article is just about some small French company that no one outside France has any idea about, not "Facebook".
27. Re:Good for France. by Sique · 2016-02-13 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  And that's exactly what TPP and TTIP and similar contracts are about. Multinational corporations want to have the most comfortable laws to them being applyable wherever they do business. And when they aren't, they want to have the right to sue in a private court not accessible and not responsible to anyone else.
  It's basicly the removal of the right of individual countries to have their own laws if they are in the way of multinational corporations.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
28. Re:Good for France. by Sique · 2016-02-13 01:11 · Score: 2
  
  See, that's the mistake you make here. Facebook does business in France and has a french version of itself, targeted at french customers. And that's the reason why the french judge decided it is also subject to french laws. If you don't do business with french customers, if you don't target french customers, and if you never intend to create a french version of your website, you will not have any problems with the french court system.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
29. Re:Good for France. by Sique · 2016-02-13 01:13 · Score: 2
  
  There is no universal right that a company must be allowed to do business in every country on the planet.
  But there are negotiations under way to allow exactly that. They are called TPP and TTIP and similar, and they are basicly about how to protect multinational corporations from national courts and those pesky citizens and their ideas how the law of the country should be.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
30. Re:Good for France. by AmiMoJo · 2016-02-13 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  Read the post again. It only applies if you do business in France. If you have no staff there then you can ignore French courts. Facebook has offices in France, pays tax in France, and is subject to French laws that say its EULA doesn't apply.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
31. Re: Good for France. by ChickPea · 2016-02-13 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  Driving on both sides at the same time? That's India.
32. Re: Good for France. by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  And if the frogs get too obnoxious, out it comes and they can pound sand.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
33. Re:Good for France. by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Until they leave and make the French customers buy their ads from a website hosted overseas.
  Which has a cost. That cost is the maximum cost that French laws can impose on overseas companies.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
34. Re:Good for France. by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  But if you target french customers, and do business with french business, but have your servers in the USA, than the frogs can suck it.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
35. Re:Good for France. by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  You don't have to operate in a country to serve up a web site in their country, in their language and to charge their business for ads.
  Facebook might have made a mistake by incorporating in France. Easy to fix.
  It certainly limits how obnoxious french laws can be before everybody just leaves (but continues doing business with individual frogs).
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
36. Re:Good for France. by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sure they have local court cases that say they matter.
  What does that matter? Seriously, I can start serving up Danish language pages tomorrow. What are they doing to do? Send the Danish army after me?
  I can sell ads to anybody in the world from California (or anywhere else).
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
37. Re:Good for France. by AuMatar · 2016-02-13 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say if you're serving a website in that country, you're operating in it. Block the country if you don't, or at least don't complain when they block you. If you're serving in their country, in their language (when its not your home country's especially) you are most definitely operating in it.
  
  --
  I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
38. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  Holy crap. This isn't rocket science. A company is subject to the laws of the country they want to do business in. The Internet doesn't change that fundamental rule of law.
  Note that I'm making no statement about whether the laws of 1 country are better or worse than another's. Or that its easy for a Web company to deal with the situation. Ultimately its up to governments to create treaties to handle these situations. Absent treaties local laws apply (and even with treaties local laws of a fundamental nature can apply. Think US constitution trumping the rules of a treaty).
  Kids these days...really you have no clue. Apparently everything should just be how you want it to be. Grow up and get out of your cozy little world.
39. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  Holy Crap. Nice ducking rant and TOTALLYmissing the point. A comping wanting to sell product in a country is subject to the laws of that country. If Facebook doesn't want to make money off of advertisers in that country than they aren't going to care about this ruling.
  Jesus fuck dude grow up.
40. Re:Good for France. by KGIII · 2016-02-13 09:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't give a shit. That changes when I put hardware in France or when I collect money in France. Then I'll worry about French laws. They can pound sand. If they don't like it, control their borders.
  Even if I sell a product or service - I still don't care. If I sell ads, have a forum, and someone from China posts on my property, in my country, then I'm going to obey my country's rules. I'm not going to censor for China - nor can I understand why people would advocate that I do. If my site's in Chinese, it still doesn't matter. If they order a product or service, and that product or service is lawful in my country, I'm still going to send it to them.
  If I'm collecting money *in* France (or China) then, sure. I'm not. (Note: I was careful to avoid saying what Facebook should do. I'm not sure why you said that I was mistaken - I'm aware that Facebook may collect money or have a physical presence in France. My reference is to the grander scale and the option #2 as was posited by the OP. Thus it pertains to that, specifically, and Facebook is only tangentially related. More on this in a moment.) If I do not have a physical presence and I am not collecting money in France - even if I "target" or accept money from French people, then I'm not going to adhere to French laws. No. I will not. There's no assets for them to seize, there's no penalty they can invoke, there's no judgment they can make.
  Now, for Facebook specifically... I'd not really brought them into it, they're immaterial as to this discussion. Specifically, regarding option #2, that's absurd at face value. Are you seriously suggesting that if I have ads, for example, and have Chinese visitors or even purchasers of ads, that I'm beholden to the censorship regulations that China has? Really? You think that's a good idea, lawful, and just?
  On the other hand, Facebook has a physical presence and accepts money *in* France. Thus, Facebook is obligated to adhere to France's regulations while they're in that position. Were I they, I'd simply move my hardware out. What's a few more milliseconds of lag for a social networking site going to amount to? I'd put up a notice that tells them why there's a slight lag and any down-time. I'd pay whatever penalties were due for the time when I had been present in their country. I'd then close up shop and France can not only have unhappy citizens, they can never see another nickel in taxes. There's not a whole lot France can do about it if they choose to do that. Other than proximity and speed of packet transit, there's no compelling reason to have any office, payment processing, or hardware in France.
  No, I'm not going to host something because some country got their knickers in a knot - nor am I going to refuse to host something. I will not let Saudi Arabia determine what I can and can not do with my hardware. The onus is on them to ensure that their citizens behave according to their laws. If I put hardware in their country or if I process payments in their country, then I'll follow their laws. Until then, they know where to find me.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
41. Re:Good for France. by KGIII · 2016-02-13 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Yup... I wonder if these people know what they're advocating? It's France and Europe and they're cool. It's Facebook and they're rich, that's not cool. So, absolutely! We'll hold that side of the argument! *sighs*
  Wait until it's China saying that we've gotta censor our content to meet their laws. Wait until it's the US saying that a company in France has to meet US laws. That all, of course, changes when/if they're physically in France, have hardware in France, or are processing payments in France. Facebook is doing all of those things. Thus, Facebook is beholden to France's laws in regards to those processes, hardware, and persons. That does not mean I'm liable to France. I have no hardware in France. I do not accept payments *in* France. I do not have employees in France.
  I hate Facebook as much as the next guy and don't even have an account - I've even got their silly scripts and whatnot blocked. However, I'm capable of looking beyond Facebook. Thus, I was specifically referencing the OP's Option #2. My response to that is, "Fuck no." I wonder what these people would be saying if the reverse was true and was a French company and US laws? Have they actually thought this through and realized what they're saying? And no, it sure as shit doesn't matter if I have ads, "target" France's citizens, accept money from them, or whatever. No... They can piss up a rope. If they don't like it, control their borders. I'm not putting up a cookie notice. I'm not expending the energy to do so. They can fuck right off if they think I'm going to. They've got borders. That's their limits. Until I am within those borders, they can stuff it.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
42. Re:Good for France. by KGIII · 2016-02-13 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  That's why I said "I" and not Facebook. Facebook is certainly culpable because they've hardware, personnel, and processing payments in France. However, if you read the post that I was responding to - you'll see it is very much relevant to this particular sub-thread. I was addressing their belief that such was applicable to all businesses and not just Facebook. That's patently absurd. You can read the parent posts if you'd like to get more insight as to what I was addressing.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
43. Re:Good for France. by KGIII · 2016-02-13 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  No, control your borders. Facebook is culpable in this instance but only because they are physically in France. You are missing the point. My point was addressing the belief that one had to obey the laws of all the other nations. No. No I don't. I will not censor for China *unless* I have a physical presence in their country. If I'm selling a product or service and someone in China orders it, I'm sending it. The payment's processed in my country, the server is hosted in my country, and I'm not about to adhere to China's laws. They can control their borders.
  If I have a site, even if it has French advertisers, even if it has French viewers, even if it has French members... So long as that hardware is not in France, France can piss right off. I'm addressing the belief that the OP had that all such things were liable and that it is legal, just, or even remotely worthy of consideration for any such business that might interact with people in France. No. No it's not. I will follow the laws where there is a physical presence or transaction.
  If France doesn't like it, they can control their borders. It's pretty straight forward. Yes, Facebook is culpable. However, to address the OP's statement (which includes more than Facebook) I responded. If you can look at what I replied to, and keep it in mind, you'll be able to see the connection. It does necessitate remembering a preceding comment.
  Again, if France tries to tell me that I must or may not do something AND I have no physical presence there nor do I process payments there then they can piss off. That goes for China, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Thailand, and the rest. However, it does necessitate that you read the preceding comment, the one that I replied to, to understand. Facebook is culpable and needs to adhere to their regulations. What they should do is simply pull their hardware out, close any offices, and dissolve any corporations located there.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
44. Re:Good for France. by Sique · 2016-02-13 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  No, your servers don't matter, but your money does. If you get money from french companies for advertising, you are heading into trouble if you run afoul french law. Either the french court will take your money directly or it will go for the companies that paid you for advertising with you if you are hiding in the U.S.. And if the french court went after your paying customers, they in turn have standing in an U.S. court against you for causing them financial loss.
  If you do business with french customers, however you do it, better follow french law. Or you are in the shit, your personal opinion about french courts notwithstanding.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
45. Re:Good for France. by Sique · 2016-02-13 22:25 · Score: 1
  
  You have no phantasy, that's your problem. The location of your servers is completely irrelevant here. If you do business with french customers, you are subject to french law. Either because the french court will go after your money, or because it will go after your customers, if you run afoul french law. And if they go after your customers, they in turn can sue you in an U.S. court for causing them financial loss due to your lawless behaviour.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
46. Re:Good for France. by KGIII · 2016-02-13 22:51 · Score: 1
  
  Payment processing done in the US. They can pound sand. France can control its borders - just like China. If I sell a service or product and someone in France pays me, payment processed here in the US (my credit union has merchant and processing accounts), then France can piss off. Just like China, just like Saudi Arabia.
  And I'm going to ship or provide that service to those French customers. They came to my country (via the web) and used my property (via the web) and the payment was processed by my processor (via the web) so France can just stuff it in their ass. If I were French and the US tried to do the same thing, I'd tell the US to stuff it in their ass too.
  I will not kowtow to France, China, Saudi Arabia, or Thailand. I will adhere to the regulations of the countries where I do business. So far, that's the US. Even if a French advertiser pays, I'm not going to adjust my practices. There's fuck-all they can do about it. France has no power to seize my assets. They have no power to effect a warrant. They have no power to stop me. So long as what I'm doing in my country is legal, they can piss off - unless, I'm in their country, my server is in their country, or the payment is being processed in their country.
  Facebook, on the other hand, needs to shut the fuck up and do what they're told. They have property, processing, and presence in France. They have to obey France's laws. The OP was extending that to include everyone and such is not true nor will it ever be true. If I were in France and the US told me to take down something (say material that was considered classified) *and* that content was legal to host in France, then I'd be telling the US to piss off too.
  'Snot really a problem until one crosses the border. No payments, no presence, no property? No deal.
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
47. Re:Good for France. by Sique · 2016-02-14 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  As I said: They will fine your customers for your misdeeds, because of doing business with a known criminal organisation. How many customers you will retain? And if you can't indemnify them, will they sue you? You can try to weasel out of a direct confrontation with a french court. But your french customers can't. And they will be angry at you, and they will sue you, trying to get back the money they had to pay to France.
  
  --
  .sig: Sique *sigh*
48. Re:Good for France. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-14 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  You don't get this terms and services part of a contract, with the EULA it can state where the Jurisdiction takes place.
  Can a French company be sued in Saudi Arabia's court? Can a representative be beheaded? If the user dislikes Facebook, well fuck facebook and go to another site that doesn't censor.
49. Re:Good for France. by KGIII · 2016-02-14 09:59 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck with that. They can obey the laws within their country. They're not going to win a lawsuit trying to recoup the money from me. They may not remain as customers but that's okay - I've already got their money. They should have followed the law within their country. This is going to be a bit long. I'm trying to reason with you. If you scroll to the bottom and kind of work your way up, it should make a bit more sense as to my motive for doing so. You're not that dumb. I know you're not.
  I don't put it past France to sue their own citizens for buying ads in a different country. So, they may actually do something like that. However, it's really not something I'd be concerned with. If France wants to make their own citizens lose business and profits that's something they can do. I'll still provide services and goods, once paid for, to anyone who pays for them. I'm not going to learn the various laws of the various countries. That's just insane and nobody has time or inclination to do so - except, maybe, Facebook, Google, and the other large businesses.
  It's going to be really funny when they all start pulling out of France and France's economy is weakened even further. However, I believe a sovereign nation should be able to set their own rules and regulations. What I don't believe (and is not the case) is that those rules have any impact on anyone outside the border. And yes, yes I hate it when my own country stomps across the planet thinking that it's okay to force others to adhere to US regulations. If the situation were reversed, I'd be saying the US can pack it in their ass.
  If France, China, Saudi Arabia, or whoever it is decides they want to impose restrictions then they can do so at their border. That's the limit. Of course, Facebook is beholden to them but that's not what the OP was asserting. They were asserting that all businesses were beholden.
  Let me, if you don't mind, ask you a question... I'm trying to actually understand where it is you're coming from and why you seem to think that it should matter. (I'm assuming you're French and have some ego associated with the topic, that's okay. It just makes it hard to be objective.) I'm going to paint a hypothetical for you. It will be reasoned, reasonable, and topical...
  Let's say you have a server in France with a domain resolvable on the internet and you host a site. On your site you have several different languages - we'll say it's a forum. Your forum not only shows ads but also will allow people to buy ad space. You process your payments with a company located within the borders of France, you are in France, and your hardware is in France. You may, or may not, sell ads to businesses in China. Even if you don't sell ads, you get paid for impressions and that means that the traffic from China is resulting in you getting paid. You can even assume that you sell ad space to Chinese customers if they want to buy them.
  Now, along comes Joe The Ignorant American and he posts about Tibet and about the oppressive behavior of the Chinese government. He posts (topical, of course - and welcome) about the massacres, the Cultural Revolution, and maybe even starts suggesting ways that the Chinese people can get around the Great Firewall of China. For the sake of argument, you're open minded and caring and welcome the content and the content is topical. It's desired, welcome, and invites both conversation and traffic to your site - including traffic from China. But, you process no payments in, do not live in, nor do you have a physical presence in China.
  So, do you feel like you should be obligated to remove that content if China's government sends you a letter telling you to take it down? Do you think you should have to listen to them? Do you think you should be subjected to their punishments?
  If you want, change the hypothetical to be forced to host content, content that you don't want, say content that that you find personally deplorable. Maybe you can use North Korea as your guide for this one. Do you feel that they sho
  
  --
  "So long and thanks for all the fish."
50. Re:Good for France. by spongman · 2016-02-14 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  so? facebook could just close its french office, do business in another currency, and nothing else would change.
51. Re:Good for France. by HornWumpus · 2016-02-15 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  That would mean the frogs have to go after local business. They much prefer to extort foreigners. If this happened (the customer lost and tried to sue you), how would they show it was your problem. They are the ones with an out of control government. A government you are not even subject to.
  You positions is that an American business, doing business in America is subject to frog laws when they get their first frogish customer? Does that apply to mail order as well?
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Actual result? by Lodlaiden · 2016-02-12 09:50 · Score: 1

So, what happens if the FB lawyers don't show?

--
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
1. Re:Actual result? by 110010001000 · 2016-02-12 09:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Lawyers always show up. Thats how they get paid.
2. Re:Actual result? by silas_moeckel · 2016-02-12 09:58 · Score: 1
  
  They loose by default. I hope they dont have assets to seize in the EU.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
3. Re:Actual result? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:15 · Score: 0
  
  So, what happens if the FB lawyers don't show?
  In Europe, corporations cannot be used to shield CEOs or other executive positions from civil/criminal prosecution.
  Corporations are not people.
4. Re:Actual result? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 12:03 · Score: 0
  
  "Civil prosecution" sounds awful.
5. Re:Actual result? by jedidiah · 2016-02-12 13:07 · Score: 2
  
  Shielding employees and stockholders is the entire POINT of a corporation.
  This WHY a corporation should never be considered a person. It exists primarily to avoid the moral awareness and responsibility that an actual meat bag has.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
6. Re:Actual result? by Carewolf · 2016-02-13 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Shielding employees and stockholders is the entire POINT of a corporation.
  This WHY a corporation should never be considered a person. It exists primarily to avoid the moral awareness and responsibility that an actual meat bag has.
  NO. Shielding the stockholders is the point of a corporation. Employees are still liable for any crimes they commit. Also in the US, most countries just have a "tradition" for not suing the rich or the wealthy such as CEO, but that is not because they are immune or protected by anything other than their money and power.
Women by 110010001000 · 2016-02-12 09:50 · Score: 5, Funny

Women should not be treated as sex objects. This isn't 1866 anymore! Grow up Gustav. Put some clothes on her and teach her to code!
1. Re:Women by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  She'll never actually learn to code, but she'll get a $100K/year job teaching the code.org tuturial on how to move elsa across the screen.
2. Re:Women by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  Cue the SJWs in t-10...
  At the same time, women (and men) should not be seen as sexless objects either. We are sexual creatures, lets stop denying it.
3. Re:Women by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  That's not a woman, it's a painting.
4. Re:Women by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:03 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  If Elsa wants to move across the screen, she will move by herself. I hope she freezes your balls off, you misoginist women-hating gamergating homophobic faggot. Go die in a cold fire.
5. Re:Women by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:07 · Score: -1
  
  Please STFU. Women themselves are the first to treat themselves as sex objects.
  Besides, this is a bad ruling. Internet companies should not be subject to every jurisdiction unless they ship stuff. This will just kill internet worldwide.
6. Re:Women by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  Especially your mom, no one on the varsity team was denying her sexuality!
  Captcha: immodest
7. Re: Women by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 14:36 · Score: 0
  
  Yes we are sexual creatures, but neither one is better than the other. And both are needed and intelligent. Both deserve consideration from both sides.
8. Re:Women by existentialvoid1061 · 2016-02-12 16:17 · Score: 0
  
  Ever think that the nude female body is considered aesthetically pleasing and is regarded as something beautiful and worth being venerated? Sure a young boy will look at the sexual bits, but I assure you that gustav was more interested in the beauty rather than the sexual.
If Facebook hosts content in France.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 09:52 · Score: 0

If Facebook hosts servers in France, they should answer to French law. If not, it is really a French citizen using a foreign service, and it should only be held accountable to the laws for where they are based.
1. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. If Facebook has a service in France, they are subject to French law.
2. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by bedonnant · 2016-02-12 10:08 · Score: 2
  
  They do have servers and offices in France.
  
  --
  ~~~ Paf. Le chien.
3. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:16 · Score: 0
  
  Tell that to the US government which believes that they have rights to information held in other countries.
  Microsoft is currently arguing this, say their servers in Ireland are beyond US jurisdiction.
  If the US government wins, it will be hard to argue the reverse does not equally apply.
4. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:52 · Score: 0
  
  It does not matter if they have offices or servers in France. You have a company that deals with a French citizen and this company acknowledge this fact. Since always in a tyranny the people are the slaves of the government, this company deals with an asset of France.
  To avoid this situation facebook should block French citizens from accessing their website. Also France is a member of EU, so facebook will have to block access to all the citizens of all the member states of the EU. It's a bit complicated but you can ban facebook EU wide this way.
5. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by Doub · 2016-02-12 12:22 · Score: 1
  
  You'd just have to pretend the US is better and deserves more than the rest of the world. Isn't that how things already are?
6. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by SvnLyrBrto · 2016-02-12 12:33 · Score: 1
  
  You know, some of us do believe that the French government should be told to piss off in this matter AND that the US government should be told to go pound sand wrt/ the data hosted in Ireland. The viewpoints are not mutually contradictory.
  
  --
  Imagine all the people...
7. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by ranton · 2016-02-12 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. If Facebook has a service in France, they are subject to French law.
  If Facebook has servers in France or accepts ad revenue from a French company, they should absolutely be subject to French laws. Depending on European Union laws, this could even apply if Facebook has servers or accepts ad revenue from any European company. Depending on trade agreements between France/EU and the USA, this could even apply if Facebook has servers or accepts ad revenue from any US company.
  It all depends on trade agreements in place for all countries involved in this case.
  
  --
  -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
8. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  The login credentials where in reach of the warrant and the server allowed logins from America.
  Seems pretty cut and dried. Their was a terminal that could get the data in reach of cops with guns and warrants.
  If the data hadn't been available in the USA the case would be different on a practical level.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
9. Re:If Facebook hosts content in France.. by HornWumpus · 2016-02-13 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  The EU of France should be free to try blocking any site they want.
  But there is no reason for Facebook to do it. Their money might not be green, but it converts to it just fine.
  
  --
  John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
France, République française, again by Max_W · 2016-02-12 09:55 · Score: 1

rises against feudalism.
1. Re:France, République française, again by superwiz · 2016-02-12 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  The Socialist Republic of France is ruled by committee (Russian word for committee is a "soviet".. now read this sentence from the start).
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Oh France... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Always ahead of USA on giving people freedom.
It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by BitterOak · 2016-02-12 10:07 · Score: -1

I don't know how big the French market is, but given this, as well as previous rulings on non-users being tracked, it looks like the French courts are trying to dictate Facebook's Terms of Service. It seems to me it would be easiest for Facebook to simply pull any assets out of France and not do any commercial business there.

--
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
1. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by bedonnant · 2016-02-12 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  They have more than 20 millions users in France. Facebook is probably better off paying a few lawyers to modify their ToS.
  
  --
  ~~~ Paf. Le chien.
2. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by Ash-Fox · 2016-02-12 10:19 · Score: 1
  
  How much money does 20 millions users in France translate to?
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
3. Re: It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by yacc143 · 2016-02-12 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  It's the EU. The non tracking comes from a court in Belgium (and it's good practice to stop doing it in the whole EU, because it's obviously in compatible in concept with the old and new privacy directives, it's just the first country what a court has ruled).
  French consumers can sue any EU company at home.
  Furthermore you have the issue that a number of EU countries are critical to popular tax dodges.
4. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by mujadaddy · 2016-02-12 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  US users value at between $13.62 and $37.98 annually, each. Even at 100 to 1, you'd be at .12*20 = $2.4M a year, and 100 to 1 is probably very low in a G8 country like Fronce.
  
  --
  Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
  "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
5. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by Ash-Fox · 2016-02-12 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the info!
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
6. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by BitterOak · 2016-02-12 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  They have more than 20 millions users in France. Facebook is probably better off paying a few lawyers to modify their ToS.
  The issue isn't the cost of lawyers fees to draft a new ToS. The issue is that the ToS which conforms to France's requirements would fundamentally change the nature of social media. In the present case, a user can sue Facebook because Facebook decided an uploaded image violated their ToS. If Facebook caves to French demands, then it loses the ability to control what content appears in their site. What if an image they are required under French law to allow is considered illegal in another jurisdiction? This is why it makes sense for all lawsuits to be adjudicated in one place, i.e. California. Otherwise Facebook might find itself in an impossible situation.
  
  --
  If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
7. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by EmeraldBot · 2016-02-12 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  How much money does 20 millions users in France translate to?
  A shit ton of people in one of the world's most important countries. France isn't insisting Facebook change its worldwide TOS, but it does insist they change their TOS for France, which is not unreasonable at all. The world is not California, move out and you encounter different people with different philosophies. Between the constant complaining of why the world isn't as sympathetic to them as the US, the billion dollar tax dodges in a country they don't even pretend to be stationed in, their shifty user policies, and overall just horrible culture in general, Facebook doesn't really do a lot to make me feel sympathy for a country standing up for its citizen's rights. I suppose we've all forgotten what that's like in this age.
  
  --
  "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
8. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by currently_awake · 2016-02-12 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Facebook France can have one set of rules, everyone else can have another, and those "special" rules can be enforced at the border to prevent cross border issues. Corporations are fully able to limit content by region, netflix does it every day.
9. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by fluffernutter · 2016-02-12 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  The people working for Facebook are very smart. They can figure out how to attach a freaking tag to an image so that it displays for users from countries whos TOSes it doesn't violate.
  
  --
  Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
10. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by Ash-Fox · 2016-02-12 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  A shit ton of people in one of the world's most important countries.
  Using 'people' as a currency/money is kind of creepy.
  
  --
  Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
11. Re:It's time for Facebook to pull out of France. by EmeraldBot · 2016-02-12 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  A shit ton of people in one of the world's most important countries.
  Using 'people' as a currency/money is kind of creepy.
  Is "potential customers" more appealing then? That's what (successful) business's have always called the general populace, and it wasn't creepy before.
  
  --
  "Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
Incorrect Summary by Translation+Error · 2016-02-12 10:09 · Score: 5, Informative

The appeals court not only agreed that the user's suspension by Facebook constitutes censorship, but the ruling itself negates Facebook's insistence that all legal challenges take place in its native California.
According to the article, the court didn't say anything about the alleged censorship. It just ruled that the clause in Facebook's terms and conditions that all lawsuits had to take place in California was invalid.

--
When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
1. Re: Incorrect Summary by yacc143 · 2016-02-12 10:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  That's obvious because in all European countries consumer protection laws require law suits to be located at the court of the residence of the consumer.
  So requiring a consumer to sue away from his residence is obviously not possible.
2. Re: Incorrect Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 12:35 · Score: 0
  
  The person affected by this is paying for a service? I was unaware of that.
  If I'm not mistaken; you have to actually PAY for something to be considered a consumer under European law. If someone offers you something with no terms or cost; you're free not to use it.
3. Re: Incorrect Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  You "pay" for Facebook with your private information, and your eyeballs on their advertisements.
4. Re: Incorrect Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 19:46 · Score: 0
  
  He's paying with his privacy. If this was going in the open market it's worth at least $50-100 yearly probably with the invasiveness of facebook several times that.
5. Re: Incorrect Summary by Carewolf · 2016-02-13 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  No. It is because such a condition is ridiculous and simply not valid.
6. Re:Incorrect Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-13 08:18 · Score: 0
  
  The appeals court not only agreed that the user's suspension by Facebook constitutes censorship, but the ruling itself negates Facebook's insistence that all legal challenges take place in its native California.
  According to the article, the court didn't say anything about the alleged censorship. It just ruled that the clause in Facebook's terms and conditions that all lawsuits had to take place in California was invalid.
  Any ethical court in any nation that respects the principle of ethical practice of law will agree with this, at least with respect to individuals (organizations such as businesses can and often should be treated differently).
  Forcing a court case to be handled remotely essentially forces somebody to hire a lawyer in that remote location, even in situations where the local legal profession - as a class or a group in society - is in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to the issues at hand.
  There have been many historical examples of this, and some nations, such as the USA, have legal systems riddled with problems involving unethical practice of law of this form. US tort law ("land of the lawsuit"), contract law, IP law (DMCA, patent, copyright, trademark), tax law, and many other areas of US law all riddled with legal ethics problems where the US legal profession has implemented rules and precedents that create artificial demand for the services of legal professionals.
  Forcing people to have cases heard in such a jurisdiction is clearly unethical practice of law, and as such, violates fundamental human rights. To put a provision in a contract that implies a right to do this is in itself a legal ethics problem.
It's in London by Sir+Holo · 2016-02-12 10:26 · Score: 1

Last I saw the painting, two years ago, it was hinging in London's National Gallery.
1. Re:It's in London by AlterEager · 2016-02-12 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  It was on loan. It's owned by the Musee d'Oray, Paris.
  (They got it in return for an unpaid tax bill).
France is stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 10:51 · Score: 0

A private company sued for censorship... lol.
Hold on now... by mujadaddy · 2016-02-12 10:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

1) Fuck Facebook
2) Fuck Facebook in the eye.
3) Fuck Facebook in the eye with a broken bottle, but don't they just serve up content to French people? What is their liability here?
Someone's going to bring up the privacy implications, but can we for one second take some responsibility for ourselves?
This little Frenchman is upset because Facebook isn't letting him host content on their servers. What is his expected remedy here? If YOU owned a site and BOFH'd it and ruled with an iron fist, would you accept some pissant crying to city fucking hall about it?
Fuck Facebook, but fuck this whole situation and everyone involved, too. My server. Fuck off. When you cut me a check to host your hairy pussy festival, then you can sue me.

--
Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
"Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
1. Re:Hold on now... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 18:46 · Score: 0
  
  My server. Fuck off.
  
  True enough, although public nudity is accepted in France; so the painting isn't offensive. Which is why the main point of the ruling, without all the FUD of the summary, was the power of that whining subscriber to sue Facebook in France. Corporations don't get to choose which laws they obey, at least not in Europe. Members of the TPP and similar will soon have a different experience.
'L'Origine du monde' by PopeRatzo · 2016-02-12 10:56 · Score: 1

In case you're wondering:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pini...
The painting is a very realistic depiction of a squirrel sitting in a woman's lap.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
More Facebook nonsense.... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-12 11:02 · Score: 0

Get a life by getting off Facebook. I did, and you can to.
umm by superwiz · 2016-02-12 17:05 · Score: 1

French court wants to have jurisdiction over what resides on a server physically located in California? Cookie? What if China asked for the same prerogative? This is precisely why the controlling bodies of the Internet must continue to be under US jurisdiction. Imagine someone like North Korea having a say in what can be on the Internet.

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
1. Re:umm by hyades1 · 2016-02-12 19:22 · Score: 1
  
  Great point. So let's shut down Facebook in Europe, South America, Canada...anywhere that doesn't share America's astonishing masturbatory fantasies with religion, racism, ignorance, guns and other evil things. And while we're at it, that whole domain thing...it doesn't really belong in the US.
  Works for me. :-)
  
  --
  I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
2. Re:umm by AlterEager · 2016-02-12 21:51 · Score: 1
  
  French court wants to have jurisdiction over what resides on a server physically located in California?
  
  No,French courts want to have jurisdiction over agreements made between a French company and a French citizen.
3. Re:umm by Reemi · 2016-02-13 01:28 · Score: 2
  
  I've seen this argument a few times now, but why would it be relevant where the content is stored or even served from. Shouldn't we look at where the content is consumed?
  Your argument is like snail-mailing cannabis from a country where it is legal to grow and sell to a country where it is a prohibited substance. Should that country allow the goods to enter the country as it was produced and served from abroad?