Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

prestonbyrne.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 418 posts

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#31

Post by beejiu »

mcny wrote: post #21
beejiu wrote: post #9

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.

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) n…

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.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#32

Post by crooked-v »

garaetjjte wrote: post #13

He seems very confused about what First Amendment is about. How it would be even possible for UK government to violate it?

By attempting to enforce legal judgments in absentia against people who live in the US, operate in the US, and block access from the UK; and then using those judgments to arrest that person as soon as they step anywhere the UK has real influence, or similarly seize their assets anywhere a judge has a sympathetic ear.

Of course it's not literally 'violating the First Amendment', but it sure seems like the kind of thing the writers of Constitution would have tried to protect against if they knew it could happen someday.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#33

Post by ranger_danger »

jacquesm wrote: post #29
spacebanana7 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the British government can pressure international payment processors or service providers to cut off a website, they can pressure those websites to do stuff.

The USA has been doing this with VISA and MC since about forever.

Do you have a source for the USA pressuring VISA and MC?

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#35

Post by anigbrowl »

jacquesm wrote: post #20
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

When a country transitions from manufacturing to services, it ends up trying to export its legal system.

The USA has been exporting its legal system for decades. And the UK still makes plenty of stuff. I really don't think this is valid. There is a close analogy though, companies that end up losing in the marketplace tend to become legally active to try to extract a tax from those that did better.

I fully agree that the US does the same thing, as do other countries- that's why I framed it as a general observation. I agree about the similar corporate behavior. I don't think it's a healthy development, but it's not easy to develop a general model of how this kind of thing plays out.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#36

Post by bbor »

So the story behind the title is that the UK gov claims that the IP block wasn't working? And the author agrees that IP blocks can't really work, even?

Separate from the free speech debate, the international law part of this seems pretty cut and dry. Here's the bolded parts:

  So, it appears, as with 4chan, Ofcom has elected to proceed with a mock execution... Ofcom is trying to set the precedent that... you have to follow its rules – even if you’re American and you’re engaged in constitutionally protected speech and conduct. To that end, Ofcom has renewed its previous threats of fines, arrest, and imprisonment, against SaSu and its operators – all Americans.
Isn't that how laws work...? Like, it's illegal to be gay in some countries. Theoretically, those countries could open proceedings against every openly-gay person in the world, and try them in absentia. That would be evil and silly of course, but I don't understand what legal principle it would be violating?

More pointedly: what is this lawyer actually "representing" these "clients" for? I don't see any mention of any US legal action, and presumably you need to be british to represent people in UK court. Isn't this just activism, not representation?

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#37

Post by bigstrat2003 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #17
Alex2037 wrote: post #11

>If we concede even a scintilla of our constitutional rights, we fail. based. as someone from a country that had reached the bottom of many slippery slopes in less than ten years, it's very disheartening to see the West following us.

It comes across as unhinged with the current regime daily infringing the [USA] Constitutional rights of USA citizens and the UK in not way seeking to inhibit those rights.

> the current regime daily infringing the [USA] Constitutional rights of USA citizens

That has been happening for decades at this point. That doesn't make today's violations ok, but neither are they something new. The people of the USA gave up on freedom after 9/11.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#38

Post by 3rodents »

garaetjjte wrote: post #13

He seems very confused about what First Amendment is about. How it would be even possible for UK government to violate it?

That’s because he’s barely a lawyer. He’s a blogger with a legal education. His legal practice is pro bono because nobody would pay for him to LARP as someone with credibility on the subject of free speech.

Edit: I appreciate the down votes but research him, he has never participated in a real case. He is not a practicing lawyer by any real measure.

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#39

Post by flumpcakes »

School-Cotton wrote: post #27
flumpcakes wrote: post #19

[flagged]

It’s of course reasonable to rank principles that way, and I’d probably agree with you, but it’s not true that it’s “not a free speech issue”. It is a free speech issue, you’re just saying you value other concerns above absolute free speech in certain cases.

'Absolute free speech' doesn't exist anywhere. Would you be arrested if you told national secrets? What would happen if you told everyone at work (unfounded) that your boss abuses their children?

Re: IP blocking the UK is not enough to comply with the Online Safety Act

#40

Post by sys_64738 »

beejiu wrote: post #9

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.

> just don't travel to the UK and you're okay.

Pretty much avoid entering Britain or its dependencies or you'll be nabbed on a Commonwealth Warrant and extradited to England.

Post reply on HN