加州的法院没有章子怡起诉博讯的管辖权/郑存柱

     本人之前写了章子怡起诉博讯的举证责任分析，今天就洛杉矶的加州法院的管辖权问题再次分析如下：
   
     因为美国是英美法系的习惯法，因此本人主要就以前的几个案例来作为分析的依据。
    
    第一个案例是一家香港公司在加州起诉一位科罗拉多居民Titzer。之所以选择在加州起诉，原因是这位科罗拉多居民的网上言论是张贴在注册在加州的雅虎公司的论坛上面。最后法院认为加州没有管辖权而取消了案件。

    “The judge reasoned that Nam Tai had only filed suit in California so that it could serve a subpoena on Yahoo! to obtain Titzer’s identity, that Titzer’s postings lacked any “peculiar impact” on California, and that the fact that a particular BBS operator is present in California is insufficient to confer jurisdiction when the postings are being entered from computer terminals outside the state and read worldwide.”
   
    法官认为Titzer 张贴的内容没有在加州有“特殊的影响”，加州以外包括全世界的所有电脑终端都可以阅读到Titzer张贴的内容。
   
    第二个案例是：Jewish Defense Organization, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 1045
   
    “The issue is not whether the company that makes the Web sites available is incorporated or based in California,” the justice wrote. “...The determinative question is whether the Web sites themselves are of particular significance to California or Californians such that the user has reason to know the posting of a message will have significant impact in this state. Although we presume respondent’s messages were available to Californians or anyone else with access to the Internet, appellant presented no evidence to suggest that respondent’s messages or the Web sites on which they were posted were directed at Californians or disproportionately likely to be read by residents of this state.”
   
    在这里，法官认为问题的关键不在于网站的公司是不是注册在加州，决定性的因素是网站是不是对加州或者加州居民有特别的重要意义，网站发布的信息会 不会对加州的用户具有特别的影响。因此，法官认为尽管加州居民可以看到诽谤的信息，但是没有证据证明这个信息是专门针对加州居民的。因此这个案件也被取消 了。
   
    不但是加州，其他州也基本上遵循这个原则。第三个案例发生在佛罗里达州（ Internet Solutions v. Marshall）。佛罗里达州法院在2008年也取消了这个网络诽谤案件。
   
    “…a federal district court in Florida dismissed the lawsuit against Marshall, who is a Washington resident, holding that it lacked personal jurisdiction over her. The court held that exercising personal jurisdiction over Marshall would violate the Due Process Clause because she lacked minimum contacts with Florida. Specifically, the court determined that Marshall's website, www.tabathamarshall.com, did not justify hailing her into a Florida court because it was equally accessible to persons in all states and because Marshall's posts did "not specifically mention Florida or its residents."
   
    在这个案件里面，法官也同样认为佛罗里达州法院没有管辖权，因为这个案件和佛罗里达没有一丝关系。网站的内容其他所有州的居民都可以看到网站的内容，而被告张贴的内容并没有特别提到佛罗里达和佛罗里达州的居民。
   
    根据以上的案例分析，章子怡在加州起诉博讯，博讯可以要求法院取消案件，因为博讯的新闻报道不是特别针对加州和加州居民，全世界（除了中国不会翻 墙的网民）都可以看到博讯的报道。博讯关于章子怡的相关报道涉及薄熙来案件，可以说网站的内容主要是针对中国的网民以及全世界关心此案能够看懂中文的网 民，而不是特别针对加州以及加州的居民（能够看懂中文的华人在加州的居民中只占少数），因此加州法院没有此案的管辖权。 [博讯首发,转载请注明出处]