Here’s a longer excerpt from the interview. In the words of the police chief at about 1:40: “And whether you’re in this country, committing crimes on the streets, or further afield committing crimes online, we will come after you.”
“Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law. You can be guilty of offences of incitement, of stirring up racist hatred. There are numerous terrorist offences regarding the publishing of material. All of those offences are in play, if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the folks who are causing the problems for communities.”
I didn’t pick up on the word “extradite,” but the wording means either they’re going after anyone in the world who commits a crime against their laws, or they’re only going after UK citizens. Either way, this nonsense is what you get when there is no First Amendment.
First, Alex Jones’s trial was a civil matter. The families of the Sandy Hook victims took issue with him and took him to court of their own initiative. This is a criminal matter. This involves people being tried and jailed by a foreign country over laws of which they were potentially unaware. That is a significant escalation of the situation.
Second, no country has the right to tell citizens of other countries what they can do in their home countries. That’s nonsense. Allowing the UK to extradite random people over Internet comments would set an awful precedent for the future. If a right-wing extremist became PM and made it illegal to promote gender-affirming therapy online, would it be right for him to extradite US citizens for “causing physical or psychological harm”?
About the first part: if your social media network is spreading misinformation unmoderated and that causes damage to another country and you insist in promoting disinformation, your network is liable for this. Not the individuals necessarily, but those like Elon responsible brazenly using their status to promote the people saying people should be killed all over shitter.
About the second part: if it is a crime in the US too, it is extraditable, it is for the US to decide if there is equivalence, there is no jurisdiction of the UK in the US unless the US wishes to see citizens punished for doing to others what it would punish its own citizens for doing.
Here’s a longer excerpt from the interview. In the words of the police chief at about 1:40: “And whether you’re in this country, committing crimes on the streets, or further afield committing crimes online, we will come after you.”
“Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law. You can be guilty of offences of incitement, of stirring up racist hatred. There are numerous terrorist offences regarding the publishing of material. All of those offences are in play, if people are provoking hatred and violence on the streets, and we will come after those individuals just as we will physically confront on the streets the folks who are causing the problems for communities.”
I didn’t pick up on the word “extradite,” but the wording means either they’re going after anyone in the world who commits a crime against their laws, or they’re only going after UK citizens. Either way, this nonsense is what you get when there is no First Amendment.
What did you think of Alex Jones’ trial?
First, Alex Jones’s trial was a civil matter. The families of the Sandy Hook victims took issue with him and took him to court of their own initiative. This is a criminal matter. This involves people being tried and jailed by a foreign country over laws of which they were potentially unaware. That is a significant escalation of the situation.
Second, no country has the right to tell citizens of other countries what they can do in their home countries. That’s nonsense. Allowing the UK to extradite random people over Internet comments would set an awful precedent for the future. If a right-wing extremist became PM and made it illegal to promote gender-affirming therapy online, would it be right for him to extradite US citizens for “causing physical or psychological harm”?
About the first part: if your social media network is spreading misinformation unmoderated and that causes damage to another country and you insist in promoting disinformation, your network is liable for this. Not the individuals necessarily, but those like Elon responsible brazenly using their status to promote the people saying people should be killed all over shitter.
About the second part: if it is a crime in the US too, it is extraditable, it is for the US to decide if there is equivalence, there is no jurisdiction of the UK in the US unless the US wishes to see citizens punished for doing to others what it would punish its own citizens for doing.
You do know that the first amendment doesn’t protect incitement, right? It’s just about the only thing that it doesn’t cover, along with defamation.
He’s literally specifically calling out something our laws also prohibit.
https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does