8 ms·

The United States (eg. illegal gambling, hacking), South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) and many other countries operate the same way.

pessimizer 1y ago
> South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) And gambling, too. Remember in 2013 when all those celebrities got busted for gambling in Macao? > After getting caught gambling illegally, Shinhwa’s Andy, Boom and Yang Se Hyung received their punishments. > On November 28, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Andy, Boom, and Yang Se Hyung to monetary penalties. Andy and Boom must pay 5,000,000 won, while Yang Se Hyung will pay 3,000,000 won. > The fines were dependent on how much money each person bet. Andy spent 44,000,000 won, Boom 33,000,000 won, and Yang Se Hyung 26,000,000 won. > The three are all currently pulled out of all schedules and self-reflecting on their actions. > Meanwhile, Lee Su Geun, Tak Jae Hoon, and Tony An are waiting for their first trial to take place on December 6. They bet more than several hundred million won. https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.interest.me/enewsworld/en/article/52114/andy-boom-yangsehyung-receive-fines https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.inte...
- morkalork 1y ago
  There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere. America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home. America will not arrest or prosecute someone from the UK visiting Thailand as a sex tourist.
    - xp84 1y ago
      Ok, hypothetically though, and going back to the smoking in Paris law, if the UK banned smoking in Paris, and a French citizen proven to have smoked in Paris vacations in the UK, the only thing stopping the UK from prosecuting them is that it would be kinda "act-of-war-ish" to start imprisoning French citizens. Technically they could under their own law, they just wouldn't dare since they don't want to start a major diplomatic incident or war.
      - kstrauser 1y ago
        Once you're in another country's jurisdiction, all bets are off. You're subject to those laws, unless there's a treaty or similar saying that you're not. In another post, I mentioned writing nasty blog posts about Kim Jong-un. If you do that, it's probably a very bad idea to visit North Korea. In this case, the operator of 4Chan is free to blow off the UK's law. They may wish to account for that in future travel plans, though.
        jay_kyburz 1y ago
        This is why we are not travailing the US right now.
        kstrauser 1y ago
        That's reasonable.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        This is also why a lot of people refuse to travel to the UK now.
        hunterpayne 1y ago
        Because you think ICE will arrest you for being an illegal immigrant? If you seriously believe this, then probably its best you don't go outside anymore. Every time the media reported something like this, turned out they were leaving out something important. Like the professor who was smuggling biological samples into the US. Turns out that's illegal, that's why she went home. If you aren't doing something like that, you will be fine.
tremon 1y ago
You are saying that when US citizens engage in illegal gambling in other parts of the world, the US sues and threatens the foreign gambling venues? That South Korea sues marihuana dispensaries in the US when they sell to visiting Koreans?
- BeetleB 1y ago
  The equivalent is the US threatening to arrest the operators of those venues when they set foot on US soil. But in any case, this is different, as the US has only declared these activities as illegal in the US. They haven't enacted laws saying you cannot gamble outside the US. When it comes to antiterrorism stuff, it's a totally different story. If I go to the Middle East and provide money to an organization on the US terrorist list, then yes - I can definitely be prosecuted for it if I enter US jurisdiction. And it goes even further - I don't need to enter their jurisdiction. The US can just have me extradited if there is a treaty.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    > When it comes to antiterrorism stuff, it's a totally different story. If I go to the Middle East and provide money to an organization on the US terrorist list, then yes - I can definitely be prosecuted for it if I enter US jurisdiction. And it goes even further - I don't need to enter their jurisdiction. The US can just have me extradited if there is a treaty. Moreover, the US government can have you seized and brought to the US without a treaty (or even in violation of a treaty), which may become a diplomatic and/or international legal issue between the US and the state where you were seized, and may subject the agents doung the seizing to personal legal difficulty in that state, but has no bearing on the validity of the criminal process brought against you once they haul you back to the US. See, e.g., U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992).
    - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
      As we have recently seen, the US may send the military to sink your boat and kill you if they think you might be planning to break a US law. Whether this is legal or not is another matter.
jandrese 1y ago
Sure, but those laws apply to US Citizens, and typically aren't enforced until the person returns to US soil. Sovereignty is a big thing in international politics. Countries as a whole are loath to meddle in other countries domestic affairs, even in extreme cases like genocide/ethnic cleansing. Violating weird online protection laws are not the sort of thing a country is going to risk an international incident over. Sure you can find some examples of countries that violate those norms, but they are the exception not the rule.

pessimizer 1y ago

> South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) And gambling, too. Remember in 2013 when all those celebrities got busted for gambling in Macao? > After getting caught gambling illegally, Shinhwa’s Andy, Boom and Yang Se Hyung received their punishments. > On November 28, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Andy, Boom, and Yang Se Hyung to monetary penalties. Andy and Boom must pay 5,000,000 won, while Yang Se Hyung will pay 3,000,000 won. > The fines were dependent on how much money each person bet. Andy spent 44,000,000 won, Boom 33,000,000 won, and Yang Se Hyung 26,000,000 won. > The three are all currently pulled out of all schedules and self-reflecting on their actions. > Meanwhile, Lee Su Geun, Tak Jae Hoon, and Tony An are waiting for their first trial to take place on December 6. They bet more than several hundred million won. https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.interest.me/enewsworld/en/article/52114/andy-boom-yangsehyung-receive-fines https://web.archive.org/web/20140215040022/http://mwave.inte...

morkalork 1y ago
There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere. America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home. America will not arrest or prosecute someone from the UK visiting Thailand as a sex tourist.
  - xp84 1y ago
    Ok, hypothetically though, and going back to the smoking in Paris law, if the UK banned smoking in Paris, and a French citizen proven to have smoked in Paris vacations in the UK, the only thing stopping the UK from prosecuting them is that it would be kinda "act-of-war-ish" to start imprisoning French citizens. Technically they could under their own law, they just wouldn't dare since they don't want to start a major diplomatic incident or war.
    - kstrauser 1y ago
      Once you're in another country's jurisdiction, all bets are off. You're subject to those laws, unless there's a treaty or similar saying that you're not. In another post, I mentioned writing nasty blog posts about Kim Jong-un. If you do that, it's probably a very bad idea to visit North Korea. In this case, the operator of 4Chan is free to blow off the UK's law. They may wish to account for that in future travel plans, though.
      - jay_kyburz 1y ago
        This is why we are not travailing the US right now.
        kstrauser 1y ago
        That's reasonable.
        pclmulqdq 1y ago
        This is also why a lot of people refuse to travel to the UK now.
        hunterpayne 1y ago
        Because you think ICE will arrest you for being an illegal immigrant? If you seriously believe this, then probably its best you don't go outside anymore. Every time the media reported something like this, turned out they were leaving out something important. Like the professor who was smuggling biological samples into the US. Turns out that's illegal, that's why she went home. If you aren't doing something like that, you will be fine.

tremon 1y ago

You are saying that when US citizens engage in illegal gambling in other parts of the world, the US sues and threatens the foreign gambling venues? That South Korea sues marihuana dispensaries in the US when they sell to visiting Koreans?

BeetleB 1y ago
The equivalent is the US threatening to arrest the operators of those venues when they set foot on US soil. But in any case, this is different, as the US has only declared these activities as illegal in the US. They haven't enacted laws saying you cannot gamble outside the US. When it comes to antiterrorism stuff, it's a totally different story. If I go to the Middle East and provide money to an organization on the US terrorist list, then yes - I can definitely be prosecuted for it if I enter US jurisdiction. And it goes even further - I don't need to enter their jurisdiction. The US can just have me extradited if there is a treaty.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  > When it comes to antiterrorism stuff, it's a totally different story. If I go to the Middle East and provide money to an organization on the US terrorist list, then yes - I can definitely be prosecuted for it if I enter US jurisdiction. And it goes even further - I don't need to enter their jurisdiction. The US can just have me extradited if there is a treaty. Moreover, the US government can have you seized and brought to the US without a treaty (or even in violation of a treaty), which may become a diplomatic and/or international legal issue between the US and the state where you were seized, and may subject the agents doung the seizing to personal legal difficulty in that state, but has no bearing on the validity of the criminal process brought against you once they haul you back to the US. See, e.g., U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992).
  - amanaplanacanal 1y ago
    As we have recently seen, the US may send the military to sink your boat and kill you if they think you might be planning to break a US law. Whether this is legal or not is another matter.

jandrese 1y ago

Sure, but those laws apply to US Citizens, and typically aren't enforced until the person returns to US soil. Sovereignty is a big thing in international politics. Countries as a whole are loath to meddle in other countries domestic affairs, even in extreme cases like genocide/ethnic cleansing. Violating weird online protection laws are not the sort of thing a country is going to risk an international incident over. Sure you can find some examples of countries that violate those norms, but they are the exception not the rule.