Hacker News Reader

Comment by garaetjjte | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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.

This seems to be correct from about 5 minutes of research.

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/

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.

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.

The USA has been doing this with VISA and MC since about forever.

Do you have a source for the USA pressuring VISA and MC?

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/visa-mastercard-wi...

Google "Operation Chokepoint".

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.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com