761–770 of 936 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
USA doesn't block websites. The FBI will seize domains after some judicial review and a court order. That's about it.
The US arrested and imprisoned the bosses of multiple UK-based gambling sites that were not only legal in the UK – they were listed on the London Stock Exchange.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment that started all this was explicitly about race. Here's a quote: > England doesn't want to be a land for the English, because to do so would make them racist. They have strength in their diversity. Blah blah blah.
Yes, but the comment DeathArrow responded to, which is apparently what started all this bickering about racism (collapse that comment to see what I mean), was not. joe_mamba's use of "diversity" reads as being about diversity of opinion; it only appears to be about race given the context you pointed out. Seriously, what part of "United people are dangerous for the elites" suggests that the people should segregate the…
You're suggesting that joe_mamba simply used a paragraph of barely-veiled racist drivel as a jumping off point to make a completely unrelated and totally-not-racist point about how diversity of opinion is harmful and "leads to weakness"? And agreed with the "cult" rhetoric for good measure?
Why exactly should we ignore the context? An excess of charity, perhaps? How are we supposed to interpret "similar issue in Germany" without the context?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people here are also more fond of 4chan than the average citizen, and also in general rather fond of technological freedom of anything. Makes sense, being players basically in the team about to get a red card. Like it or not, the global internet became a convenient way to skirt local laws and I don't see any reason why exempting something in one place only because it originated in some other place. Is now enf…
Yes it should, there is no global law, and hell forbid there ever should be. It's fucking stupid that an American site that is afforded free speech protection in its own country has to deal with the UK acting like a tyrant.
There are so many global laws that are actually enforced. Of course they all origin in the US. See KYC/AML laws.
The response from Ofcom doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. If you are to sell a toy in the UK you must be a British company. (and must pay VAT and comply with British safety standards). If a consumer buys from overseas and imports a product then they do not have British consumer protections. Which is why so much aliexpress electrical stuff is dangerous (expecially USB chargers) yet it continues to be legally imported. Jus…
That’s not really true. The Ofcom representative said “not allowed” not “unable to”. Even if cocaine is legal in my country, I’m “not allowed” to sell it to British consumers by the power of the British authorities. The British authorities may not have legal authority in my jurisdiction but they can take action in their own, including issuing penalties and stopping my deliveries at the border.
What Ofcom wants is for their consequences to happen extraterritorially.
4chan's lawyer's response: "In the only country in which 4chan operates, the United States, it is breaking no law and indeed its conduct is expressly protected by the First Amendment."[0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c624330lg1ko
As shown in that same article, they also responded: >>> "Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said. "The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Age checks and risk assessments are cornerstones of our laws, and we'll…
Keyword: "The UK".
> cornerstones of our laws
Keyword: "our laws".
> and we'll take robust enforcement action
Enforcement action can only take place within the jurisdiction (with a notable exception of the US which doesn't give a single fuck about someone else's law).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's neither here nor there. Just get the best people. Or are you against the current racial makeup of the earnings of the top NBA players?
In case it wasn't clear, my comment was sarcastic. To be absolutely clear, I don't agree with racial discrimination. So that we don't talk past each other, here is a summary of my perspective of the discussion so far: NoMoreNicksLeft dropped an unhinged rant about "England for the English", including a clearly sarcastic and mocking reference to "They have strength in their diversity". joe_mamba chimed in with "divers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As much as I dislike the results of that, the opposite would be worse.
The rule of law is worse than might makes right? Or what do you perceive as the opposite of "might makes right?"