3 ms·
I 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
by ubernostrum 14y ago
I 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.