4 ms·

He seems very confused about what First Amendment is about. How it would be even possible for UK government to violate it?

spacebanana7 1y ago
If the British government can pressure international payment processors or service providers to cut off a website, they can pressure those websites to do stuff.
- jacquesm 1y ago
  The USA has been doing this with VISA and MC since about forever.
  - ranger_danger 1y ago
    Do you have a source for the USA pressuring VISA and MC?
    - superkuh 1y ago
      https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/visa-mastercard-win-suit-over-wikileaks-block https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/visa-mastercard-wi...
    - jacquesm 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - ranger_danger 1y ago
        > Is google down again? Damn. Sorry man, I'd try again in a couple of hours. "The burden of proof lies upon the person making empirically unfalsifiable claims." Beyond that, I find your comment to be extremely rude and condescending, and a violation of this site's guidelines. Science says being generous, thoughtful and kind is a sign of high intelligence, so let's all try to be nicer.
    - qball 1y ago
      Google "Operation Chokepoint".
    - hunterpayne 1y ago
      This happened when the Dems were in power. Its part of the reason why they aren't in power anymore. Letting un-elected bank employees make these sorts of decisions isn't in anyone's best interest. The banks did not enjoy this situation at all and probably won't play ball next time they are asked. Banks hate to lose money and that's exactly what happened in this situation. First they had to turn down business, then they had to pay to defend themselves in a lawsuit.
crooked-v 1y ago
By attempting to enforce legal judgments in absentia against people who live in the US, operate in the US, and block access from the UK; and then using those judgments to arrest that person as soon as they step anywhere the UK has real influence, or similarly seize their assets anywhere a judge has a sympathetic ear. Of course it's not literally 'violating the First Amendment', but it sure seems like the kind of thing the writers of Constitution would have tried to protect against if they knew it could happen someday.
3rodents 1y ago
That’s because he’s barely a lawyer. He’s a blogger with a legal education. His legal practice is pro bono because nobody would pay for him to LARP as someone with credibility on the subject of free speech. Edit: I appreciate the down votes but research him, he has never participated in a real case. He is not a practicing lawyer by any real measure.
- argsnd 1y ago
  This seems to be correct from about 5 minutes of research.
- frm88 11mo ago
  This guy really is something. From asserting that hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment to suing Australia over Internet policies to suggesting the US dominate all Internet rules: https://tradersunion.com/news/tag/prestonjbyrne/ https://tradersunion.com/news/tag/prestonjbyrne/
seiferteric 1y ago
Well technically, this is just a philosophical point, but the bill of rights is supposed to protect _natural_ rights that apply to everyone regardless of where they live. So in theory the UK can and does routinely violate peoples rights

spacebanana7 1y ago

If the British government can pressure international payment processors or service providers to cut off a website, they can pressure those websites to do stuff.

jacquesm 1y ago
The USA has been doing this with VISA and MC since about forever.
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  Do you have a source for the USA pressuring VISA and MC?
  - superkuh 1y ago
    https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/visa-mastercard-win-suit-over-wikileaks-block https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/visa-mastercard-wi...
  - jacquesm 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - ranger_danger 1y ago
      > Is google down again? Damn. Sorry man, I'd try again in a couple of hours. "The burden of proof lies upon the person making empirically unfalsifiable claims." Beyond that, I find your comment to be extremely rude and condescending, and a violation of this site's guidelines. Science says being generous, thoughtful and kind is a sign of high intelligence, so let's all try to be nicer.
  - qball 1y ago
    Google "Operation Chokepoint".
  - hunterpayne 1y ago
    This happened when the Dems were in power. Its part of the reason why they aren't in power anymore. Letting un-elected bank employees make these sorts of decisions isn't in anyone's best interest. The banks did not enjoy this situation at all and probably won't play ball next time they are asked. Banks hate to lose money and that's exactly what happened in this situation. First they had to turn down business, then they had to pay to defend themselves in a lawsuit.

crooked-v 1y ago

By attempting to enforce legal judgments in absentia against people who live in the US, operate in the US, and block access from the UK; and then using those judgments to arrest that person as soon as they step anywhere the UK has real influence, or similarly seize their assets anywhere a judge has a sympathetic ear. Of course it's not literally 'violating the First Amendment', but it sure seems like the kind of thing the writers of Constitution would have tried to protect against if they knew it could happen someday.

3rodents 1y ago

That’s because he’s barely a lawyer. He’s a blogger with a legal education. His legal practice is pro bono because nobody would pay for him to LARP as someone with credibility on the subject of free speech. Edit: I appreciate the down votes but research him, he has never participated in a real case. He is not a practicing lawyer by any real measure.

argsnd 1y ago
This seems to be correct from about 5 minutes of research.
frm88 11mo ago
This guy really is something. From asserting that hate speech is protected by the 1st amendment to suing Australia over Internet policies to suggesting the US dominate all Internet rules: https://tradersunion.com/news/tag/prestonjbyrne/ https://tradersunion.com/news/tag/prestonjbyrne/

seiferteric 1y ago

Well technically, this is just a philosophical point, but the bill of rights is supposed to protect _natural_ rights that apply to everyone regardless of where they live. So in theory the UK can and does routinely violate peoples rights