4 ms·

> Instead you potentially punish the citizen for having committed a crime on foreign soil, and/or arrest the dealer should they come to your country. This is so

> Instead you potentially punish the citizen for having committed a crime on foreign soil, and/or arrest the dealer should they come to your country. This is something nearly every nation state already does. Another thing to look at is extradition treaties. But they didn't commit a crime on foreign soil... they did something legal there. The servers, manufacture and the information is created and stored in russia, and we're just "travelling" (with our IP packets) to russia to read that content there (I'm assuming the servers are located there). I still remember when freedom of speech was a right people fought for, even if they didn't like what "the other person" said.... sadly, this is changing and bringing with it dark times.

w7 4y ago
> But they didn't commit a crime on foreign soil... they did something legal there. Irrelevant to how a state chooses to organize its criminal code. If the act is considered severely criminal in nature then most nation states do not care where it occurred, nor should they. > I still remember when freedom of speech was a right people fought for, even if they didn't like what "the other person" said.... sadly, this is changing and bringing with it dark times. Lies by foreign actors are not the same as opinions or criticism of a country's own citizens. They are an offense against the public and should be policed. This isn't about simply "not liking what someone said". This is about statements that have negative value; created for the express purpose of causing confusion and harm.