Introduction#

In June 2024, a small French web hosting startup called Nexcord (SIREN number 981862246) decided to take legal action against our forum, Active Member Chat (AMC), a U.S.-based community run by volunteers, because a user said their service “sounds like a scam.”

What followed was a bizarre mix of legal misunderstandings, linguistic chaos, and the birth of the now-iconic phrase:

Legal 7 days, French law prime.

It starts with one post#

In December 2023, someone on our forum (AMC) said something harmlessly skeptical about a service called Nexcord:

“That has to be a scam or selling all of your data 24/7. Maybe run it in TOR and use fake info. Not even gonna lie, it sounds like a lot of fake s**t because if that is real, then there is a catch. But this probably isn’t real chat.”

That’s it. That’s the whole “defamation.” Apparently, this was enough to summon The Nexcord Owner, Johan Garcia, into our forum.

June 2 — The First Email#

Subject line: “Diffamation Nexcord.com society by ACM”

To: AMC

Excerpt

“I recently saw a post on your forum where one of your moderators engaged in defamation of my website. Defamation is a crime under the law.

I request the immediate removal of the message and the termination of the related account. Nexcord is not a scam. We are a private enterprise, registered in France with SIREN number 981862246.

Let me know the contact details of your lawyer if you wish to address this with the authorities.”

June 2 — AMC’s Initial Response#

At this point, we replied as the newly created French Relations Department (because if you’re going to deal with nonsense, you might as well have fun doing it).

This is the E-mail AMC sent back:

However, after engaging with our moderation team and our law team based in Atlanta, Georgia, US, this is an opinion, and under USC 47 Section 230, we have no civil liability for what our users say. The provision has stated:

> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

This law was intended to prevent large sites like Facebook or small sites like a student blog from being sued for someone else’s words. Further more, the US SPEECH Act (An Act to amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments and certain foreign judgments against the providers of interactive computer services), [in some instances, conditions apply] prevents the the recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation lawsuits were to happen.

June 3 — “French Law Prime”#

Nexcord did not like the fact AMC would not give in. They sent this back:

Thank you for your prompt response. However, there are some points where you are mistaken. You do not understand the difference between an opinion and defamation. An opinion is based on possibility, while your team’s moderator has stated that my company is a scam without any proof, not that it might be a scam.

Without modification, I will need to take legal action. The entire AMC team is defaming Nexcord. Nexcord is a French company, and French defamation laws apply. You are subject to a fine of 12,000 euros under the law of July 29, 1881, Article 32.

This message marks the first instance of the misunderstanding: Jurisdiction.

Why french law doesn’t apply to AMC#

47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (the Communications Decency Act) states: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

That means AMC cannot be held liable for what a user says. If someone feels defamed, they must sue the poster, not the platform. Then there’s the SPEECH Act (28 U.S.C. §§ 4101–4105), which would block enforcement of foreign defamation judgments that conflict with U.S. free speech protections. Even if Nexcord won a lawsuit in France, no U.S. court could recognize or enforce it.

In general.— Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a domestic court shall not recognize or enforce a foreign judgment for defamation against the provider of an interactive computer service, as defined in section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230) unless the domestic court determines that the judgment would be consistent with section 230 if the information that is the subject of such judgment had been provided in the United States.

French law wouldn’t have held it up either#

Under Loi du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse, Article 32 indeed criminalizes defamation, however, there is a statue of limitations of 3 months, as stated in Article 65 of the same law.

L’action publique et l’action civile résultant des crimes, délits et contraventions prévus par la présente loi se prescriront après trois mois révolus, à compter du jour où ils auront été commis ou du jour du dernier acte d’instruction ou de poursuite s’il en a été fait.

A general localization in English is:

Public and civil proceedings arising from the crimes, offences and contraventions provided for under this Act shall be subject to a limitation period of three months, running from the date of commission or from the date of the last act of investigation or prosecution, if any.

It is important that if it’s based on discrimination, then it’s extended to one year, but that doesn’t apply in this case.

Essentially, even if we broke French law and even if AMC were French, Nexcord ran out of time.

“Why AMC Does Not Care About French Law”#

After several very absurd emails, we decided to make our stance crystal clear, via a PowerPoint.

Reason 1: We do not live in France

Reason 2: French defamation laws don’t apply to U.S. providers

Reason 3: French defamation laws only cover 3 months

Reason 4: The U.S. SPEECH Act blocks foreign defamation judgments

Reason 5: It’s an opinion. Americans can have opinions.

We ended it off with

“we ain’t french, we won’t ban users for opinions, and we don’t tolerate anyone who tries to intimidate us into taking down opinions.”

The PDF is online here, if you so wish.

Special Visit from Johan#

On June 3, Johan registered an account (@xileran) and entered the chat himself:

“Hi everyone, I’m the Nexcord owner! Just here to answer question 🙂”

When welcomed to the forum, Johan wrote:

“im obligated to come here to resolve some issue and defamation about Nexcord. You have a little surprise in your mailbox, don’t hesitate to ask the leader to check.”

To note: there is no “leader” of AMC, as it is ran by the staff team as a whole. As users tried to figure out what “surprise in the mailbox” meant, Johan replied:

“I can’t send it to you to your personal email, only domain email can be an authority proof, that is a strange request. I let you give me your contact webmaster email. Without an answer, I’ll need to go directly to the authority, but you have the legal week to answer.”

I think he’s saying that he can only talk about the “defamation” via E-mail and if we did not reply within his “7 legal days”, he would go to the French Gendarmerie.

A chat with 9pfs#

He then exchanged messages one of our admins, 9pfs:

9pfs: “I’m sorry about that post, we aren’t trying to attack your business in any way.”

Johan: “i mean ahah, the control of the community is your job, not mine.”

Johan: “i don’t want to attack your society too, i think we know you and me lawyer fees isn’t free. So i wait your webmater mail to solve the issue”

9pfs: “Would you be willing to explain informally here? (If you check the MX record for amcforum.wiki, we are truly unable to recieve incoming emails to staff@amcforum.wiki right now, because the domain that should be handling it effectively doesn’t exist currently.)”

Johan: “Someone have access to staff@amcforum.wiki ? My mail was not declined so im quite suprised that you can’t see it, you are the wner isn’t it ?”

9pfs: “I’m not the “owner”, just one of the people who help run AMC”

Johan: “I mean, I can’t sir, answer need to be by mail, it’s usual people trash my work without knowing it and I need conversation to send to my lawyer, not a chat on an unknown website. I’m sure you understand, btw you are obligated to have a Webmaster Mail related to the whois, so I just want it. I know mail isn’t cheap at porkbun, but it’s a legal obligation”

Side note: We don’t use Porkbun for mail and never have.

9pfs: “I understand that, it is just difficult for us to do anything at this point since we don’t know what your email is about (other than what can be inferred from what you’ve sent here). To clarify, by saying that I understand, I am specifically stating that I understand that responses to your request must be sent via email. That is the only thing that I am stating that I understand. Just thought that was worth clarifying”

Johan: “So, if you understand, why you don’t give me your webmaster legal mail ? you are public on internet, i just want the webmaster mail 9pfs: How many hours do we have to respond?”

Johan: “Legal 7 days don’t worry, attacked side is in France, so the French law prime. After 7 days I just give it to the lawyer, and it’s not anymore my issue”

AMC could care less about foreign law. We stated:

If he sends a VALID legal demand in the US, [We’ll] actually do something about it. Also, he’s trying to scare us by saying it will cost a lot of money for both ends[…]

We gave him our address where he could send registered mail to.

NOTE

Georgia’s anti-SLAPP statute, Ga. Code Ann. § 9-11-11.1, protects public forum speech related to issues of public concern. This includes posts on internet forums discussing the legitimacy of services like Nexcord. If someone were to sue AMC in Georgia, the forum could file a special motion to strike the lawsuit. This would pause the case and force the plaintiff to prove they could prevail at trial. If they failed, AMC would be entitled to full reimbursement of legal fees and court costs. The law instructs courts to interpret it broadly to cover a wide range of protected speech.

Our final response#

AMC sent this final response:

“Good evening sir. We do not care. We have considered this matter closed after we have asked you to give your lawyer’s details or have him contact us, but failed to do so. It is also past the 3 months for public defamation in France to be reported. Your lack of basic English skills leads you to believe speculation is fact. Your lack of basic geography leads you to believe France is America. Stop lying and touch grass. All further emails from this E-mail will be blocked. You are advised to have your lawyers reach out to us via this E-mail.”

After that, we blocked all Nexcord domains from emailing AMC.

Aftermath#

Nothing happened. Because AMC was right. Johan could do nothing. He never sent a lawyer.

The moral of the story: learn your rights.

Why section 230 is important#

It shields everyone. From giants like Facebook, to Mastodon instances, to small forums. It allows Google and Yelp to let you post reviews without overbearing moderation of your opinions and experiences. If it didn’t exist, there would be either: (a) no moderation, (b) too much moderation, or (c) nothing, as it would be too risky.

People have tried to gut it. Missouri Senator Hawley proposed the Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act which would’ve gutted the automatic legal immunity that big platforms (like Facebook and Twitter) have under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Only “big tech” firms (30 million U.S. users or USD 500 million in revenue) would lose automatic protection. To “earn it back”, they’d have to undergo a political-neutrality audit run through the FTC, proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that their moderation policies and algorithms were not biased against any viewpoint. Who knows what could come next. This bill never came into law, but there are still plenty of attempts and loud supporters of what can only be described as Section 230 enshittification.

If we want platforms, big and small to survive, we must protect Section 230. If you want to demand transparency and allow users to appeal, allow them to have a fair appeals,

If we want platforms, big and small, to survive we must protect § 230. If you really want to demand transparency and allow users a fair appeals process, fine, but don’t replace free-speech protections with government-mandated checks that can (and likely will be) weaponized on both sides.