Comment by miki123211
4 years ago
The problem with cases like this one is that they really show the inadequacy of the geographic government model in the age of the internet.
If a Czech citizen, currently living in Slovakia, doxxx a British person resident in Canada on a site hosted in the Maldives and managed by a Japanese citizen, protected by a German server owned by an American security company, which government has the right to order the content to be taken down?
All of the above countries, including countries not mentioned in your example, have the right to order the content to be taken down, following their own country's regulations.
"Taking down content" can range from blocking the site from being accessible from inside the country, to organising measures together with other countries where the site is actually hosted to take down the site at its roots, should the country allow it.
North Korea, China, Russia are prime examples of blocking being heavily used to control the Internet.
A government's model will never be "inadequate" as long as people live there and abide by the country's law because of various incentives (economical, sociological, familial, ...).
In my view, the order of jurisdiction preference goes:
1) Country of the victim's residency.
2) Country of the agressor's residency.
3) Country where the web site is legally headquartered.
4) Country where the web site administrators are residing.
5) Country where the physical servers are.
6) Any other country that somehow can claim some reasonable connection to the case.
Of course, the ideal thing would be to setup some sort of world-wide ECHR to sort out any jurisdictional issues and perhaps even rule in some cases.