Only about three of us are going to appreciate the post/username combo here. 
While I’d be surprised if they were at all successful, they are, I believe, trying to make a point here.
It is germaine to this thread… The OP is going on about how TERRIBLE it was that Obama did not rush to France to show support, because this was just so, so insulting to the French.
Whereas in actual fact, the French people were more insulted by an idiotic right wing Fox News broadcast.
But hey. Why let facts get in the way of a good old fashioned Right wing Obama bashing.
You’re right. 5 to 10 years should be sufficient
You know, I still haven’t heard any of our resident Obama-bashers opine on whether they think it would have been safe for Obama to march in public in a foreign country with 36 hours preparation time for his arrival.
Somehow, I don’t think that concern is uppermost in their minds…
Or it might have been their goal.
“See, he selfishly endangered those around him.”
Kinda depends on which variety of secret Muslim he is, is he a secret Shia Muslim or a secret Sunni Muslim?
Good luck?
I am not taking a legal action against the Fox News, so I need no luck at all. I have only told you what the reality is, and that is the French law allows such legal actions by the legal entities like the municipality of Paris, that such actions have a standing, and such actions are also with a standing under the EU framework. It is additionally the case that the parent corporation of the Fox News has assets that fall into their jurisdiction and which can be attached by judgements and make their business pay monies.
The idea that “such a lawsuit goes nowhere” is a lot like the very badly informed american talk about the lawsuits against the Microsoft or the Google going nowhere. They did not “go nowhere” even though they did not have an accord with the american law. Surprise, when a company has the assets in a jurisdiction, your law does not matter, it is the law of the legal jurisdiction.
I note these actions - such as google which I did not and do not even agree with - to illustrate how stupid and ignorant your comment is, as it is clearly only a stupid partisan comment. You somehow think I am a Leftist and making - like you do - some politically motivated and informed comments only. It is not the case.
So good luck on your badly informed comments. I am sure you will update us on future stupidities.
No, you are wrong - the French law is completely different from your law. I think even in the US the municipal authority has not a legal standing, but the French law on defaming has both a criminal and a civil component and the jugdgements standards are not like your American standards.
I am sure right now the News Corp lawyers, who know what an EU enforceable judgement (and I am not a cheerleader of this framework at all, it is not I think a good thing) can hit the News Corp assets with severe liabilities, are telling New York to be serious.
It is again not like US law which so many of you think is the world standard but it is not (and in fact unusual) and it is not a small risk that the News Corp faces under the French law with very severe penalties. If they do not it is probably because of political intervention.
And really, could we afford another $200,000,000 for every day he’s abroad? I mean, India is cheap compared to Paris so it would probably cost, like, $500,000,000.
Wrong about what? I didn’t say anything about French law.
Did you know that having a criminal penalty for defamation is contrary to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights?
Of course you did not as I am sure you know nothing about it. You did say “Proving harm is a much more difficult proposition.” This is an American comment. The French law is differnt, so without you understanding it, you made a comment on the French law.
so your response to your ignorant comments is to google on wiki to pretend a response to try to hide the shame of showing you are a simple ideological?
it is very amusing, but this does not change the complete ignorance of your comments.
The ICCPR is not a self-implementing legal instrument. It is not, in any event, contrary to European law and certainly not to French law. See page 60 and 178 (and note that 19 US states had criminal libel statutes on the books as of 2005.)
[QUOTE=Ramira]
Of course you did not as I am sure you know nothing about it. You did say “Proving harm is a much more difficult proposition.” This is an American comment. The French law is differnt, so without you understanding it, you made a comment on the French law.
[/QUOTE]
It’s an American comment about American law. I know everyone and everything west of the Atlantic is Yankee Imperialist nonsense to you, but I’m not interested in your views on American law. Actually, I’m not interested in any of your views, inasmuch as you haven’t actually posted anything of substance on French law in this thread.
Which is not relevant as we know to the legal issues.
So to not be an american chearleader is to say anything one says is just to be a "Yankee Imperialist nonsense? " bullshitter? How sensitive the americans are. If only they could see a mirror.
If you care about my “views” does not matter really, what matters is the French law and the EU law as well for the greater risk. Why your american comment matters I do not know.
It realy is strange how a supposed concern about the impact and concern about the american reputation as come to the minable put putting about details.
If you don’t mind fighting ignorance in the Pit, a question. How does the fact that the ICCPR is not self-implementing apply to current situation under discussion?
Also, what about this ruling:
Is that not binding under the “framework”?
Not at all. Some treaties are “self-executing”, meaning they become part of the bodies of positive law in each ratifying state (at least in theory). Others are not. Sometimes they’re both. Non-self-executing treaties are arguably more aspirational then firm law. For the most part, there are few or no penalties for states who fail to implement them.
For example, the Berne Convention governs international copyright law. Some of its provisions are self-executing. Others weren’t, and required signatories to draft domestic legislation that mirrors the text of the convention. In Medellin v. Texas, SCOTUS held that the ICJ Statute was not self-executing and that Texas wasn’t required to provide foreign nationals access to consular officials when it arrested them even though the ICJ had ordered it to do so (though the US is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which says it does.)
To answer your second question, the UNCHR (and its successor, the UNHRC, which is the body that actually heard the Philippines case) didn’t have any actual power. It had the authority to tell countries they were violating the ICCPR and other UN instruments, but that was pretty much it. It certainly couldn’t prevent the Philippine government from carrying out the sentence.
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
The SPEECH act also prohibits U.S. courts from enforcing a potential judgment by France against News Corp on this issue, correct?
As safe as it was for Merkel or Netanyahu.
I had no idea that Merkel and Netenyahu were equally as prestigious and influential as Obama and that they were subject to as many death threats on a regular basis as Obama is.
I’ll ask the question again; is it safe for the President of the United States to travel to a foreign country and march down a crowded street in public with 36 hours notice?
Feel free to imagine that the president is Ted Cruz or Scott Walker or another Real American™ instead of the Secret Muslim Marxist Wealthy-Elitist Atheist Foreign Bill-Ayers-Protégé Socialist Death-Panelist Usurping Black-Supremacist Totally Incompetent Imperial-Out-Of-Control Golf-Playing Rap-Music-Listening-To Manchurian Actually-Born-In-Kenya Homosexual Junkie Illegal-Occupant-In-Chief who has unlawfully seized control of that once good and noble office.
It prevents US courts from enforcing a foreign judgment to the extent that the judgment is inconsistent with the First Amendment and equivalent state constitutional protections. Most of News Corp.'s assets are located outside the US, though, so Paris or whoever can attach those. Fox has substantial broadcasting operations in Paris itself, for example.