I don't really understand the concern. The UK objects to suicide forums and American operators of suicide forums are protected by the First Amendment of extradition to the UK. So if you want to operate a suicide forum from America, just don't travel to the UK and you're okay.
I think the classic example is copyright and hacking offences, of which there are many many examples. Legal in a person's home country, very illegal in the US (unless you are a big corporation, of course).
Usually, countries only respect extradition treaties when there is an equivalent law on their books
(the workaround would be to charge someone with bullshit charges for the extradition)
The main issue is that few countries respect freedom of speech on principle and even that group has edge cases.
There is a grade to crimes. Lesser crimes are only punishable if they were done in a country. Bigger crimes are punishable even if you did them outside of the country.
Imagine that your own country finds out that you were a prolific serial killer while on a holiday in another country. Do you think they will just ignore it?
This is because your home country has jurisdiction over you and is more than free to write laws punishing you for whatever they want.
This is country B considering something a citizen of country A did while in country A to be a crime. And not that it even matters but in country A that thing is legal. Like country B is a sovereign state and can arrest you for whatever it wants while you're there but the bigger question is whether country A should be mad about it and impress themselves on country B to get them to not do that.
That's really the issue here and exactly what the GRANITE Act he's proposing does.
It seems like the US is actually being too nice here. It's a perfectly reasonable position to reject the notion that a country has global jurisdiction and to consider such an arrest to be a hostile act against the US. I would be pissed the moment a country thought it could punish one of my citizens for something they did while under my jurisdiction—even something that I consider to be illegal.
There are cases in which refugees were tried in the EU, when there was a suspicion that they committed war crimes in Syria while being citizens of the country.
Or imagine that country X with age of consent of 18 would find out that the citizen of country X while home, married 8yo child and impregnated her.
It's the same principle. So there is nothing special about extending jurisdiction beyond your own borders.
The issue in this case is that Freedom of Speech is such a fundamental right, that it should not be forbidden anywhere in the world. Sadly, it is forbidden in most Western countries, let alone developing.
The idea is that a website in the US can be accessed by UK users, no matter what blocks are put in place on either end. Agree that the US shouldn't be nice about this though.
Mens rea usually means intent to do the thing, not intent to commit a crime.
E.g. if I involuntarily swing my arm and hit someone in the face as a result of a medical condition I lacked the appropriate mens rea and am not guilty. If I intentionally punch someone in the face while being somehow unaware that I'm not allowed to do that I am guilty.
Hard to see how mens rea would save anyone from being guilty here.
Extraordinary rendition is still a thing, though; the US has done this several times.
Now, granted, the US is a freer country than the UK is so that doesn't usually matter all that much, but all the US would need to do to nullify its 1A would be to simply permit the UK to enforce its claims of extraterritoriality in US-friendly airspace.
What speech they might be permitted to prosecute would naturally change based on administration.
First of all, I anal and also this is more of a question than a statement but
a us person could travel to a country x and that x could send this us person to a UK prison? I don't know if doing so would be legal but when the rubber hits the road, each country x is technically sovereign and does not have to honor the first amendment of the US constitution.
So even if it might be frowned upon to extradite foreign (US) nationals in country X (such as Canada or India) to the UK, they could do it anyway to send a message?
I traveled to a lot of countries during my time in the military. I was also a legal officer that had to deal with legal issues in foreign countries.
Traveling is no joke. Americans often act like the world is their playground, but you are subject to the laws of the jurisdiction you're standing in. Traveller beware.
Your First Amendment rights only apply within the United States, this should be obvious. Nonetheless, extradition treaties generally require that a crime be considered a crime within both jurisdictions.
Most of Europe does have similar thought-crime and censorship laws as the UK now have. Also, the crime of "hindering an official investigation" could be interpreted into this, and this exists practically anywhere.
The only further question would be if the country is friendly enough with the UK to extradite.
Extradition of a foreign citizen to a third country is not a simple matter, diplomatically speaking. The US might not have the hegemony it enjoyed 20-30 years ago, but it certainly has plenty of sway.
When it's a matter of drug charges or other obviously criminal activity, the US embassy and diplomats don't normally raise a fuss, but for something like this where the person made first amendment protected speech in the US? That'd definitely raise all kinds of hell.
Plenty of US citizens would actively cheer the notion of having a foreign government arrest their political opponents as an end-run around the fact they're not allowed to do it at home.
After all, 1A/"freeze peach" laws should only protect you from your government, right?
> Plenty of US citizens would actively cheer the notion of having a foreign government arrest their political opponents as an end-run around the fact they're not allowed to do it at home.
I'm not convinced that plenty of US citizens would celebrate a foreign government arresting an American for what would be protected by the 1A in the US. There will always be trolls, of course.
> After all, 1A/"freeze peach" laws should only protect you from your government, right?
If my government has the longest dick of all governments in the world, and knows how to swing it, I'm not so sure.
Plenty of US citizens openly celebrated the murder of an American for what was protected by the 1A in the US.
So no, I don't think that the people who celebrated that would care, and said people would actively support an administration that actively encouraged the UK in this manner for the same reason.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the US administration being very selective about which "first amendment protected speech" they actually cared about. I can even imagine them rapidly extraditing somebody who's speech they didn't like, such as pro-abortion or anti-fascist.
It's not clear to me that the UK even has a mechanism to discover the operators of such sites. If I found myself in such a position, I imagine I wouldn't even bother trying to block UK IPs and let them sort out their own internet blocking.
I was reading anout attacks on the 1A and thought this was about the UK extrading US citizens. If this is just that you'd get arrested in the UK, then yeah this isn't a 1A concern. Though the US govt should still do something about it imo.
Exactly. Honestly after the how article was ended by the nonsensical nationalistic chest beating which I absolutely didn't understand why author felt the urge to do that, I got the feeling that it was more about some sense of authors nationalistic pride.
I do not even slightly support these UK's regulations and even an possiblity of ban of VPN services seems bizzare to me but as you said. He is already protected.
It depends, and no obviously not. Having a forum to discuss suicide/suicidal ideation is fine, outright telling someone to kill themselves is illegal. The Michelle Carter case is an example of this
