6 ms·

This case is more like UK bans selling cigarettes and tries going after a Parisian tobacconist.

• beardyw 1y ago
  Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.
  • jojobas 1y ago
    No, more like the Parisian tobacconist had the audacity to sell tobacco to some Brits without asking Ofcom.
    • tpoacher 1y ago
      yes, where said Brits were in Britain and the tobacco was shipped there.
      • Palmik 1y ago
        No, the tobacco was being served from France, the Brits used British pidgeon carriers to bring the tobacco to Britain.
  • ibejoeb 1y ago
    Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.
    • foobarian 1y ago
      Time to stand up Hadrian's Firewall!
    • awesome_dude 1y ago
      There was an Australian case, I'll look it up, but the relevant bit, the publishing of the web page happened on a computer in Australia, which they claimed (successfully) gave them jurisdiction
      • ibejoeb 1y ago
        But what does successfully mean? An Australian court can rule on it, but Australia is going to have to take it up with US State from there. Or send the navy, I guess...
    • fecal_henge 1y ago
      I'm nearly at the point of saying that a tobacco sales isn't the best analogy here.
      • ibejoeb 1y ago
        I could be milk, right? Or a sheet of paper. I'll concede that it's not terribly far fetched. If the french entity produced a good that is illegal in the UK put it in the post to be delivered to the UK, then we have something like an analog to producing HTML in one place and displaying elsewhere. However, the thing about sovereignty is that you don't have it if you can't enforce it.
    • tgv 1y ago
      They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.
      • ibejoeb 1y ago
        You can argue that either way. It's not the best analogy. I extrapolate in another comment in this thread. NZ agreed to cooperate with the US request. That made all the difference. If the US agrees to allow UK to proceed, then that's trouble for 4chan.
      • tremon 1y ago
        4chan brings their services into the UK How exactly do they do that? Do they have peering agreements with UK-based ISPs?
      • RHSeeger 1y ago
        To argue the details, no they don't bring their service to the UK. Rather, they surface their services where ever their servers are. And then "the internet", other people's hardware and such that they have no control over, bring it to the UK. I know it's pedantic, but this particular thread is _about_ the pedantics.
      • mikkupikku 1y ago
        The most important difference between this and Kim Dotcom is the US has a lot of weight to throw around, evidently having enough to lean on the governments of small countries like NZ. In the case of 4chan though, it's a once-great but now relatively minor country trying to have their way with an American company, meanwhile America has laws explicitly for the purpose of telling the British to fuck off with the imposition of any of their free speech violating antics against Americans.
        • throwaway48476 1y ago
          The US entertainment industry has a lot of weight to throw around.
      • 1y ago
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
• littlestymaar 1y ago
  Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.
  • iamnothere 1y ago
    It still sounds absurd to me. Nations should not be in the business of passing laws that apply to extraterritorial actions of foreign citizens. I know that it happens, especially with the US, but IMHO it’s just not how things should work. This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. Just wait until 30 years from now when you can’t safely visit anywhere in the far East because you made a subversive comment about China. Although I’m sure the same people will hypocritically wail and gnash their teeth about the laws made by those people, when of course our extraterritorial laws are just fine.
    • lenerdenator 1y ago
      > This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. This has been happening long before the US started doing it. If anything, it's normalized in the US because of the bad behavior prior to the US doing it. China's a great example. What does brutally crushing dissent internally and abroad without even a facade of a single care about human rights get you? Well, in their case, damn near superpower status. Been that way since at the very least Nixon's administration. The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". The concern for human rights shown since the end of WWII in the West (particularly the US) is an exception, not norm, in history.
      • yupyupyups 1y ago
        >The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". Who are these people you're talking about, tankies, faschists? The Chinese have the government that they deserve. They screw each other over, and what goes around comes around. It's a cautionary tale, not an example to follow.
• binary132 1y ago
  Good reminder that what happens on the server stays on the server, but what happens on the client happens wherever the client is.