Mention the Tiananmen square massacre and express your support for a free, independent Tibet. Don’t forget to link to such subversive organizations as the Open Net Initiative, Human Rights Watch, the Berkman Center, and the BBC.

Then, it will be difficult for a Chinese plaintiff to prove that your blog has actually been read in China, which doesn’t prevent him from suing you, though.  But suing you for what you have posted on your blog is also more difficult for a lawyer if he cannot access your blog from his country, so you’ll be safe.

What’s interesting about this case isn’t only the issue of jurisdiction (think of Dow Jones v. Gutnick and Bangoura v. Washington Post), but also the apparent chilling effect of the lawsuit: The author added three statements (in a very formal language, but not legalese) to his post that are worth translating (I’m trying to stay as close to the original text as possible):

„Statement, 01/05/2007: Given the tight economic relations between the People’s Republic of China and Germany, I–as the author of the post–would like to point out that in order to draft the text, I performed due research on the internet in October 2006. The German press only featured information that contained the situation described [in the posting, ed.]. Our Google Analytics analysis has revealed that the article actually has not been read. Probably, only a handful of Google visitors from Beijing read this post. It is not in my interest as a blogger to interfere with the relations between these two states. I myself have given a keynote on an Online Marketing Conference in Shanghai in summer 2006 and enjoyed the hospitability of the country. Therefore, I would also like to retract my „harsh wording“. I am also happy to report on it if the legal situation is different. [meaning of that sentence unclear in the original text, ed.] Should the legal situation be different, I formally apologize to the Chinese bus manufacturers. But for this purpose, I need sufficient information and detailed facts.“

„Statement, 01/07/2007: Thanks much for your comments. Unfortunately, many of them are solely libelous against China and against the Chinese bus manufacturer. In view of the pending litigation in China, I am unfortunately unable to clear them for publishing. Thank you for your understanding.“

„Statement, 01/08/2007: The post has been changed–the disputed sentence has been deleted. However, it has been cited sufficiently in the press.“

Zonda’s legal department might want to read Urs Gasser’s post on the effects of the Tron lawsuit.