61–70 of 418 posts
The First Amendment was created to protect against foreign governments impeding on your speech?
I feel like that's really missing the point of what this amendment is about, at a time when the First Amendment is at greatest threat from the current US government.
>This is demonstrably false. By testing from.. a single VPN IP? And as noted in other comments here he doesn't seem to understand how geo ip databases are maintained. I sure won't be asking this guy to represent me anytime soon.
The combative stance that he's taking really doesn't do him any favors in resolving the issue. Lawyer: "I've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is blocked." Regulators: "We've confirmed that at least one UK IP address is not blocked." In what world is the correct response "Dear regulators, you're incompetent. Pound sand." instead of "Can you share the IP address you used so my client can address this in their…
That would imply that the client actually would like to be contacted every time Ofcom found a leak in the geoblock. Not a good idea imho.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Seems reasonable. If I committed what is considered a crime on American soil, I wouldn't expect to be able to enter the US without arrest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Seems reasonable. If I committed what is considered a crime on American soil, I wouldn't expect to be able to enter the US without arrest.
Interesting that it's the existence of the suicide discussion forum that's too much to bare for the UK. Really drives home the point that in the state's eyes: your self, your body and ultimately your life, don't belong to you.
It’s one thing to be talking about suicide or assisted suicide because you’ve decided it’s right for you and your situation.
It’s another to be dealing with depression from trauma, unable to get help and have no support system, and then be coerced by individuals on forums with ulterior motives.
I’m not saying I am in support of the UKs attempts, but it’s also not helpful to paint everything black and white on either side. Real solutions require dealing with the grays and the details.
edit: And for reference I have spoken to people in the later situations who have found all too many toxic individuals online who will say things like “you should definitely just kill yourself” in the midst of such situations, who after therapy consider those people to have been committing even more trauma (most likely because they get off on the control of another persons life, playing out murder fantasies etc, and who use the internets anonymity to further traumatize people at their most vulnerable)
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the big things I've been wondering about the decision of the Anglosphere to all switch to a service economy: why would you do that when your population is both smaller and dumber than the populations of other countries? The UK (nor the US) has no advantage in providing services, all it can do is demand that other people be prevented from providing them.
You're the smartest, most clever, most physically fit, but why does nobody else seem to realize it?
Edit: that's not to say it isn't a valid strategy; NK has a big stability buff.
> They’re definitely not treating it like a public safety matter, where they know how to reach us and know that I generally respond within the hour. It's been exceedingly obvious but it's nice to know that Ofcom never thought that anyone would bother to fight back. This is clearly not about public safety but about controlling American corporations. Parliamentary forces seem to be directly suborning this corruption.
> This is clearly [...] about controlling American corporations Not exactly. On the surface, it's about kowtowing to pearl-clutching UK NGOs that are empowered by Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch's hysterical tabloids; and underneath, the real agenda is about restricting the influence of unsanctioned sites that could influence UK discourse - influence that established UK press barons (like the Murdochs, Lebedev, etc) want…
Is 4chan attempting to unfairly or unduly influence UK "discourse?" Or are they just _contributing_ to it as members of the public on an anonymous forum?
> Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch's hysterical tabloids
Which actually are an attempt to influence UK discourse. The framing errors are interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You’re right, but I never claimed it did. Even the famously expansive US freedom of speech protection is not absolute.
> 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?
Yes you would be arrested, which is a freedom of speech issue, however banning this speech, despite harming freedom, is justified by other factors that are more important in these cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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 th…
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?