4 ms·

Given that the UK recently extradited a UK citizen for breaking an American law, does this mean that racist Americans could be extradited to the UK for posting

by revscat 15y ago

Given that the UK recently extradited a UK citizen for breaking an American law, does this mean that racist Americans could be extradited to the UK for posting a tweet which incites racial hatred? Somehow I doubt it, although the logic is superficially sound.

ajross 15y ago
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- AkThhhpppt 15y ago
  Similar clauses in other countries' laws haven't prevented extradition the other way.
  - ajross 15y ago
    Good grief. It's the first sentence in the Bill of Rights, not merely a "clause in a law". And I don't know the specifics to which you are referring, but the UK does not have such a guarantee of speech rights. There are occasional flame wars to that effect in our share social circle. So no: there is no way in hell that any US court will order an extradition for a prosecution of a pure act of speech. They occasionally break that rule internally, of course. But no way would any politician allow a foreign court to do it.
    - davweb 15y ago
      The UK is a signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), Article 10 of which guarantees freedom of expression. This became law in the UK with the 1998 Human Rights Act. The text of the ECHR does explicitly mention "duties and responsibilities" and so is perhaps not as strong as the Bill of Rights in this regard, but it is wrong to say there is no guarantee to free speech in British law.
      - ajross 15y ago
        And the predicted argument about "does the UK have free speech?" has begun. I didn't say there is no guarantee to free speech in British law. I said the UK doesn't have a guarantee of the same form of the first amendment, as witnessed by the linked article where someone went to jail for tweets.
    - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
      Yes, it's the first clause of the US Bill Of Rights. So? Still a clause in law. And that's the point; the gp was, I _believe_, complaining about the perceived lack of equity in a relationship that has the US extraditing citizens of the UK for actions that are crimes in their jurisdiction but not in the UK, when it would never be considered to be allowed the other way.
      - ajross 15y ago
        But it's not even remotely symmetric. In one direction it's just a crime being prosecuted, and the UK has similar laws that could conceivably apply. In the other it's a prima facie violation of (stated without hyperbole) the single most important law of the nation. See the difference? And the "never be considered to be allowed the other way" bit is silly. The US has extradition treaties with most of the industrialized world, and extradites criminals routinely (although perhaps not necessarily fairly or symmetrically). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#International_extradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_S... But they won't extradite anyone for this crime, for reasons of fundamental constitutional law. That's not going to change no matter how many downvotes the first amendment receives above.
        AkThhhpppt 15y ago
        The UK has no criminal law about copyright. Whatsoever. The US is attempting to extradite this guy for the crime of linking to copyrighted material: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/17/student-file-sharing-tvshack-extradition http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/17/student-file-shari... I've been trying to find a case where the US extradited someone to a jurisdiction where they were accused of committing a crime not on US books. I can't.
        ajross 15y ago
        No. The 2003 Extradition treaty certainly is a UK law. But (and for the record: I think that extradition is unjust too) this has nothing to do what our discussion at all. You want the US to extradite people for hate speech. I pointed out that no, that will never happen because of the clear text of the first amendment to the constitution. And you started flaming away, I guess because I'm American and therefore The Enemy. But the point remains that no matter how symmetric and just and wonderful its extradition policy might come to be, US law would never allow such an extradition. It will not happen. So stop flaming and find another shibboleth.
- freehunter 15y ago
  Except hate speech is not covered under that amendment, neither is incitement of violence. These restrictions come from Supreme Court rulings interpreting the Constitution.
  - ajross 15y ago
    No, that's flatly incorrect. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States for more references than either of us can reasonably read in the time alloted to this silly flame war. Hate speech is "legal" in the US. And even if it were not, and this was an edge case where the first amendment might not apply: there is no way a US court would order an extradition to a another country and let a foreign court (!) interpret the US constitution. None.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      Did you miss this? outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.
      - ajross 15y ago
        No, but you misinterpreted it. The first two aren't crimes, they're torts. You can't extradite someone to sue them in civil court.
        freehunter 15y ago
        I never claimed they were planning to extradite someone, just that even in the US, free speech has its limits. Check out this post I wrote at roughly the same time to someone else: Even in the US, you can be sued civilly for hateful comments and jailed for comments that could be construed as inviting or inciting violence. I don't know the full story, the tweets are gone and the BBC didn't reproduce them. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3762691 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3762691 It really seems like everyone here (including in the other thread) is trying to read more than what I wrote. Both you and the other person I was talking to used the word "crime", when I never remotely hinted at calling it a crime.

by revscat 15y ago

ajross 15y ago

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

AkThhhpppt 15y ago
Similar clauses in other countries' laws haven't prevented extradition the other way.
- ajross 15y ago
  Good grief. It's the first sentence in the Bill of Rights, not merely a "clause in a law". And I don't know the specifics to which you are referring, but the UK does not have such a guarantee of speech rights. There are occasional flame wars to that effect in our share social circle. So no: there is no way in hell that any US court will order an extradition for a prosecution of a pure act of speech. They occasionally break that rule internally, of course. But no way would any politician allow a foreign court to do it.
  - davweb 15y ago
    The UK is a signatory of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), Article 10 of which guarantees freedom of expression. This became law in the UK with the 1998 Human Rights Act. The text of the ECHR does explicitly mention "duties and responsibilities" and so is perhaps not as strong as the Bill of Rights in this regard, but it is wrong to say there is no guarantee to free speech in British law.
    - ajross 15y ago
      And the predicted argument about "does the UK have free speech?" has begun. I didn't say there is no guarantee to free speech in British law. I said the UK doesn't have a guarantee of the same form of the first amendment, as witnessed by the linked article where someone went to jail for tweets.
  - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
    Yes, it's the first clause of the US Bill Of Rights. So? Still a clause in law. And that's the point; the gp was, I _believe_, complaining about the perceived lack of equity in a relationship that has the US extraditing citizens of the UK for actions that are crimes in their jurisdiction but not in the UK, when it would never be considered to be allowed the other way.
    - ajross 15y ago
      But it's not even remotely symmetric. In one direction it's just a crime being prosecuted, and the UK has similar laws that could conceivably apply. In the other it's a prima facie violation of (stated without hyperbole) the single most important law of the nation. See the difference? And the "never be considered to be allowed the other way" bit is silly. The US has extradition treaties with most of the industrialized world, and extradites criminals routinely (although perhaps not necessarily fairly or symmetrically). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_States#International_extradition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_law_in_the_United_S... But they won't extradite anyone for this crime, for reasons of fundamental constitutional law. That's not going to change no matter how many downvotes the first amendment receives above.
      - AkThhhpppt 15y ago
        The UK has no criminal law about copyright. Whatsoever. The US is attempting to extradite this guy for the crime of linking to copyrighted material: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/17/student-file-sharing-tvshack-extradition http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jun/17/student-file-shari... I've been trying to find a case where the US extradited someone to a jurisdiction where they were accused of committing a crime not on US books. I can't.
        ajross 15y ago
        No. The 2003 Extradition treaty certainly is a UK law. But (and for the record: I think that extradition is unjust too) this has nothing to do what our discussion at all. You want the US to extradite people for hate speech. I pointed out that no, that will never happen because of the clear text of the first amendment to the constitution. And you started flaming away, I guess because I'm American and therefore The Enemy. But the point remains that no matter how symmetric and just and wonderful its extradition policy might come to be, US law would never allow such an extradition. It will not happen. So stop flaming and find another shibboleth.
freehunter 15y ago
Except hate speech is not covered under that amendment, neither is incitement of violence. These restrictions come from Supreme Court rulings interpreting the Constitution.
- ajross 15y ago
  No, that's flatly incorrect. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#United_States for more references than either of us can reasonably read in the time alloted to this silly flame war. Hate speech is "legal" in the US. And even if it were not, and this was an edge case where the first amendment might not apply: there is no way a US court would order an extradition to a another country and let a foreign court (!) interpret the US constitution. None.
  - freehunter 15y ago
    Did you miss this? outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.
    - ajross 15y ago
      No, but you misinterpreted it. The first two aren't crimes, they're torts. You can't extradite someone to sue them in civil court.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        I never claimed they were planning to extradite someone, just that even in the US, free speech has its limits. Check out this post I wrote at roughly the same time to someone else: Even in the US, you can be sued civilly for hateful comments and jailed for comments that could be construed as inviting or inciting violence. I don't know the full story, the tweets are gone and the BBC didn't reproduce them. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3762691 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3762691 It really seems like everyone here (including in the other thread) is trying to read more than what I wrote. Both you and the other person I was talking to used the word "crime", when I never remotely hinted at calling it a crime.