3 ms·

Different logic, because the UK punishment is for publication in the UK, not the US. Where the words were written and first published has been immaterial in law

• polski-g 9mo ago
  If the server is in the United States, it's not published in the UK. The UK citizen did a pull request for that content. If the UK government doesn't want the UK citizen to see they, then they need to be the one doing the censoring
  • chrisjj 9mo ago
    > If the server is in the United States, it's not published in the UK. "the Southern District of New York, where many copyright cases are decided, have held that merely posting a digital file on the internet does not constitute publication because the act of posting does not involve the statutorily required act of transfer of ownership, rental, lease, or lending. " https://dunnerlaw.com/copyright-office-to-clarify-how-to-determine-whether-an-online-work-is-considered-published-for-registration-purposes/ https://dunnerlaw.com/copyright-office-to-clarify-how-to-det... "Websites, whether they be .uk or .com or under any other country domain are effectively accessible from anywhere in world. As a result if they contain material offensive to any jurisdiction in the world the website proprietor could face legal action anywhere in the world." https://www.warnergoodman.co.uk/site/blog/news/overseas-liability-for-web-publishing https://www.warnergoodman.co.uk/site/blog/news/overseas-liab...