5 ms·
There are several levels of traps here. One is a form of magical thinking -- the idea that "on the internet" should grant some sort of mystical immunity from j
by ubernostrum 14y ago
There are several levels of traps here.
One is a form of magical thinking -- the idea that "on the internet" should grant some sort of mystical immunity from jurisdiction. There's a fairly large body of pretty well-settled laws and treaties for deciding whether a country has jurisdiction for potentially-criminal actions that cross national borders, and for deciding whether to extradite to that country. That's exactly what's applying here.
Another is wishful thinking: wanting a system that extradites for things HN thinks should be crimes, but doesn't extradite for things that HN thinks shouldn't be crimes. The plain and simple fact is that it doesn't work that way; we can wish that the laws regarding, say, copyright were other than they are, but wishing won't make it so. Only actual changes to the laws will make it so, and extradition treaties are not the laws that would need changing.
Finally, there's the trap of assuming that this sort of thing -- a vengeful, powerful figure abusing the most convenient jurisdiction to punish someone -- is somehow new, or is unique to the US. Libel tourism is a relevant example here, since the UK is often a very friendly venue for those who seek legal revenge on critics/dissenters. It also ties in quite nicely with the second point above, because it has resulted in other countries actually changing their legal systems to bar enforcement of UK libel judgements.
- arethuza 14y agoSlight nitpick - you mean English & Welsh libel judgements. Scots law is pretty different in this area (no idea about NI).
- ubernostrum 14y agoI was actually kind of hoping that would get brought up, because it leads into a useful parallel to the extradition case. The US libel-enforcement ban does not name specific countries, so far as I'm aware; rather, it simply bans enforcement of any foreign libel judgement if that judgement is inconsistent with the US Constitution's guarantees of free speech. In other words, it refuses to enforce a libel judgement if that judgement could not have been made under US law. Meanwhile, the extradition at issue here boils down to a treaty which permits extradition if the alleged act would be a crime in the UK.
- arethuza 14y agoSo you actually think he should be extradited??
- ubernostrum 14y agoFrom what I've read, I think extradition is the correct outcome with respect to the current state of the relevant laws and treaties. This is not the same as agreeing with or supporting the currently-adopted regime of copyright enforcement. I will state that I have very little respect for the modern notions of copyright disobedience. Historically, civil disobedience as a form of protest against unfair or unjust laws has carried with it the implicit assumption that such disobedience will be punished, perhaps quite brutally. The reality of that punishment is a large part of what makes civil disobedience noble, and serves to provoke broader outrage at the state of the laws which permit such punishment to occur. Modern copyright dissenters lack that nobility, and without punishment, lack any way to generate broad sympathy for themselves and outrage against the laws.