No it doesn't. It places a restriction on government power. Which is a distinction that matters.
It's a negative liberty, not a positive entitlement.
It's one of the most widely misunderstood aspects of US constitutional law.
The US government cannot assist in levying or enforcing these fines in any way.
‘no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.’
...and only US govt. power. UK is outside US, right?
That's not the only thing confusing this US lawyer.
"America will not tolerate Ofcom's behaviour for much longer... Every time they send one of their unenforceable enforcement notices into our country, it adds fuel and urgency to law reform efforts here in the United States," Byrne added.
So urgent law reform to counter unenforceable enforcement notices. Law makers surely have better things on which to waste their time.
What happens if a tech company decides to follow EU law worldwide, just because it's more convenient than blocking some stuff just in the EU? That shouldn't be allowed.
I cannot imagine why any US American company would comply with an unenforceable foriegn enforcement notice.
none of which are accessible directly from the UK.
and rt.com is super secret blocked
Not due any *unenforcable" enforcement notice, right?
Anyway, SciHub.org is accessible directly from UK on both ISPs where I am.
What I meant was it doesn't matter if they don't voluntarily eventually they'll just be locked out of the market and their staff issued with arrest warrants should they set foot in the UK. It's not just a debt, it's a crime.