Same logic that applies to foreign countries attempting to punish private US citizens for words written and published in the US that a UK citizen happened to read.
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 long before this latest issue.
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
> 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-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."
> foreign governments have decided they can threaten American citizens and American companies for speech that is protected by our Constitution
I am at a loss to understand how speech delivered on non-USA soil is protected by the USA Constitution.
Same logic that applies to foreign countries attempting to punish private US citizens for words written and published in the US that a UK citizen happened to read.
It's all nonsensical bullshit.
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 long before this latest issue.
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
> 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-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-liab...