On Tuesday 20 January 2009 12:49:28 pm Anthony W. Youngman wrote:No it's not a problem at all. What IS the problem is that you are telling me I should abide by American law, when I am not American, have only ever ONCE set foot on American soil, and have no desire to do so again.That's a shame. It's a very lovely country, with lots to see and do. I don't think I've ever been to a country that I could categorically state I would never wish to return. I hesitate to wonder what horrible thing we must have done to earn such hate from you. I hope some day you reconsider and come visit us in all of our many triumphs and failures.
You haven't earned any hate. I said "I have no desire to set foot on American soil". Why should I want to go there? I'm a European, with a strong socialist streak, and have a far more "eastern" outlook on life. I have no hate for America (and have family who are naturalised/by birth American), it just has no appeal for me. Given the choice, I'd go east to Central/Eastern Europe, not west to America.
That's called "extra-territoriality", which is frowned upon in most civilised jurisdictions ...I honestly don't know what you are talking about here... I do know that Germany, for example, has a universal jurisdiction statute for human rights violations, allowing them to bring suit against anyone, anywhere, for violation of that statute. Of course, you've got a problem with enforcement, but you are still certainly breaking the German law if you commit human rights violations beyond their territory. Is Germany not a civilized jurisdiction?
Ummm ... I thought the UK was unusual, in that we have only very recently made sex crimes a prosecutable offence in British courts against British nationals, regardless of where the act actually took place. But even there, British sovereignty is only claimed over British nationals.
Germany is civilised. But I don't think they're enforcing NATIONAL law (at least, not the way you think). Human Rights is an INTERNATIONAL issue, covered by INTERNATIONAL treaties, and they have simply given their courts the right to enforce INTERNATIONAL law.
Certainly from my point of view, living in another (allegedly) civilised society, if I fell foul of the German law, I would have broken British law as well, and the British courts would probably claim jurisdiction too.
So you're saying that, even if you have NO CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER with Utah, you can be forced to follow Utah state law (of which, not having any contact with Utah, you cannot be expected to know)?>I am somewhat at a loss... just as Francesco is in Italy, I am in the >United States, and if he were to give me legal advice, he would be in >violation of California statutes. Perhaps violating other country's >laws doesn't bother him... perhaps he can simply declare my laws as >"irrelevant"... but it would not be my advice, as I very much wonder >what the controlling law would be when someone gives advice to another >with knowledge that they are in a jurisdiction that requires a license >even though they don't have one. Certainly if I were to give advice to >someone in Utah, even though I live in California, I could be hauled >into a Utah court... even though the legal practice law in a State law >not a federal one. Even easier, the Utah fellow could sue me in a CA >court under their own laws. But surely, in order to do so, you must have broken a Federal statute? Not knowing the American legal system, I find it very odd that you could be sued in Utah, or in California under Utah law, if you've never been anywhere near Utah.Nope, in the federal system a state can enforce the laws of another state if it so chooses. It's not required to, and in practice, most folks would remove the case to federal jurisdiction. But with federal removal, you've got a Federal Court, applying a state law, against a resident of a different state. Happens all the time.
That's absurd! (Certainly to my mind!)
Mind you, if that's the case, maybe that's why Americans think American law can be enforced outside their own borders, if State law can be enforced outside of a state's borders.We think it if the treaties between the nations allow for it. I know it has happened in the past, I really can't speak with any authority as to how often that happens and what sorts of law it covers. But in the world of torts (which is what we are talking about), I wouldn't be at all surprise to learn that I can bring a tort suit against a foreign national in their own jurisdiction but under *my* law. Understand the very important distinction between a criminal case and a civil case, such as torts. Different concepts, different policy objectives, different enforcement.
As I understand it, if it is legal in Britain then you cannot touch me. End of story. Unless there exists a contract between you and me that our dealings are covered by US law, then as a British National resident in Britain, then any claim you make against me must be under English law.
>Not entirely certain what an Italian court would make of the claim of >violating U.S. laws on the subject. He might get of free; I don't think >it would be pretty. But, by all means, stick your head in the ground >and complain about American parochialism, it's realy no skin off my knees.
Actually, I suspect the Italian court would have the same reaction as the British one - "Do you have a prior agreement that US law applies? No? Case dismissed!"
> But anyway. I'll give your claims the respect they deserve - and do a "reductio ad absurdam" on them! Do you remember the Dmitry Sklyarov affair? He wrote a cracker for Adobe's software. He wrote it IN RUSSIA, as was REQUIRED by Russian law, and then the Feds arrested him when he went to America, for his actions that were not only legal when and where he did them, but were required by the local law! What am I supposed to do, if my local law REQUIRES me to do something to which American sensibilities take offence?First off, I marched in those protests. I followed the case pretty closely, and I the claims of "required by local law" were dubious at best. But Sklyarov came into U.S. soil and gave a presentation on how to do something and put him in violation of the DMCA. Now, I'm no fan of the DMCA, but this isn't a conversation about the wisdom of the law.
I gather that, actually, the Adobe product was illegal under Russian law unless a product like Dmitry's existed ... and you're saying that giving a presentation is illegal? That doesn't even qualify as hate speech!
People die from peanuts being in food, true. My daughter's allergic. But I wasn't talking about peanuts CONTAMINATING some other food. I'm talking about a product that is 100% pure unadulterated peanuts!Unfortunately, it's attitudes like yours which result in things like this... Dry Roast Peanuts Caution! This product may contain nuts! And I believe this really has appeared on product packaging !!! But don't expect the typical European to pay much respect to the lunatic American legal system (as an example, how long has the SCOG drama dragged on in the US? They actually tried the same thing in Germany - and within weeks were slapped down by a "put up or shut up" injunction).Sure is, and so what? People... lots of people... have died from peanuts being in food. So, as a matter of course, we require that food products made in this country disclose whether or not peanuts are in the food, or even made in a facility where other peanut products are produced. This cost manufactures effectively NOTHING to add to the package, and in exchange, we save lives. Seems like a decent trade, and it's made possible by our civil tort system. Pretty neat, if you ask me!
(Notice actually, if you're being legally pedantic, that warning is also false. "May" implies a possibility. Given the product in question, it's an absolute certainty!)
Although I do take your point that it's probably required as a stupid side effect of a law that doesn't take into account that there are products that consist primarily or solely of nuts, and therefore results in daft warnings.
Cheers, Wol -- Anthony W. Youngman - anthony@thewolery.demon.co.uk