This judgment is unenforceable in the United States as a matter of public policy (thanks to our First Amendment). So it's merely an attempt by Société Générale to muzzle critics.
If Mish were a multinational company with operations in France, it would be different. But he's not. So he can gleefully ignore it, as he is, correctly, doing.
> So he can gleefully ignore it, as he is, correctly, doing.
Ignoring it would mean "never base your action on that decision". However, now he can't travel to France or any of the french territories (Martinique etc.). That's not what I'd call ignoring. It's a shitty situation: Fined for invalid reasons in a trial where you never had a chance to fight.
Yes, other countries have silly laws. I'm sure if you set up a blog complaining about the king of Swaziland, for instance, and his predilection for selecting an additional wife, willing or not, every year from the selection of bare-breasted virgin teenage girls paraded before him[1], you might not want to visit that particular corner of Africa.
But the reach of Swazi or French laws is limited unless you visit Swazi or French soil. And in the case of the French libel law in question here, I'm not clear it would even preclude a visit to Paris. Do you have any citation for the proposition that a visitor would be arrested for what would be a civil tort?
BTW, if he fought it in France, he would lose. See yesterday's "due process" discussion. If it's a bad law, due process helps you not one whit.
If Mish were a multinational company with operations in France, it would be different. But he's not. So he can gleefully ignore it, as he is, correctly, doing.