3 ms·
The precedent here being that you may be extradited to a country you have never even visited on the basis of something on the internet. If your country is frie
by revelation 11y ago
The precedent here being that you may be extradited to a country you have never even visited on the basis of something on the internet.
If your country is friendly with Uganda, try not discussing your nontraditional sexual orientation online.
There's a bigger picture here. We desperately need to rethink what laws and in particular which jurisdiction applies. The previous approach ("all of them, all of the time") has produced any number of nonsensical results and tremendous damage in the form of forum shopping.
- grecy 11y agoThis is the slippery slope that terrifies me. It's also not worth mentioning online you drink alcohol unless you want to be extradited to certain middle eastern countries. Females might not want to mention online they've had sex before marriage unless they want to extradited to certain countries. Americans might not want to mention online they have semi and fully automatic weapons unless they want to extradited to Canada/Australia/UK/Etc. etc. etc. etc. The list is endless when a country a person has never been to can have anyone in the world extradited for something they did online which breaches local laws.
- murricaFsckYeah 11y agoI doubt this has is particularly related to "Internet"... It has a lot to do with american imperialism, the kind of imperialism that they will always deny. You see, even before Internet, the US extradited some people based on bullshit arguments, while conveniently ignoring the very same crimes committed by their own friends. It's rather obvious that they are showing off their power.