It means, to me, that they will charge UK citizens who have broken their laws now matter where they are.
Should the white house respond to the UK?
- Thread starter Whiskeydeltadeltatango
- Start date
It appears he could be referring to three groups:
1. People causing trouble in person (on the UK streets)
2. People causing trouble online (UK citizens)
3. People causing trouble online (outside of the UK)
‘Come after you’ could be, in the case of 1 and 2, tracking them down and arresting and charging groups 1 and 2.
1 and 2 are in their control. Number 3 is not going to affect US citizens. I suppose they could be charged and then if they tried to go to the U.K. get arrested. Otherwise, what are we worried about, exactly?
Yep. What it clearly isn't is a call to extradite US citizens. That's stuff the numpties are making up.
Because this one article. Alexander Hall put some nice spin on it to get clicks and rile up the masses. Mission accomplished, it appears.
UK police commissioner threatens to extradite, jail US citizens over online posts: 'We'll come after you'
'Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law' the police commissioner warned
By Alexander Hall Fox News
You understand without the threat of extradition someone outside the jurisdiction is ‘safe’ from the law, right?
The commissioner clearly says in response to a question asking about someone behind a keyboard in different country, and he clearly says they won’t be safe.
And you can’t figure out why?
It’s because acting dumb isn’t always an act, is it?
She then asked what the police force’s plan will be “when it comes to dealing with people who are whipping up this kind of behavior from behind the keyboard who may be in a different country?”
Rowley answered by telling the reporter, “Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.”
Why did he specifically mention Musk, a non citizen of the UK?
Just it admit it formerly, the whole thing is a bad look for the Brits.
I assume they could charge Musk, and keep him out of the UK.
I agree it’s a bad look, but they don’t have the same liberties we do here. If I was a UK citizen I’d be more upset. It’s good to be an American.
excuse me...
how dare you tell people that they shouldn't get all riled up that one guy said something that could be interpreted in a way that suggests he wants to do something that he doesn't actually have the power to do!??!!?!
these people are scared...frightened...terrified
we need to show them support and ensure them that everything will be ok
No.
Point is, why worry about threats that aren’t going to happen?
I get scared when the government says they’re going to go after people for sharing videos of riots.
Imagine Trump and Co using the threat of law to punish anyone who shares a BLM post on social media because they say it incites racial unrest and rioting.
That is happening now not just in Pyongyang, but London.
But you’re too busy trying to find any possible pretext to ignore the actual threats they’re making, and where this road inevitably goes.
George Orwell was right.
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever”
I’m sure someone will be watching and asking for confirmation it’s actually a boot and not a sandal, or maybe just galoshes.
Fair enough.
I’m just not worried we’re going to be shipping US citizens off to London to face charges just because a London police commissioner arguably got out over his skis.
No it doesn’t. It has been “restrained” by SC rulings more than once. Don’t bullshit a bullshitter, plz.While such a sentiment has become disturbingly popular with some Americans and policy-makers like Governor Walz, it is incorrect. The First Amendment does guarantee free speech when it comes to both misinformation and hate speech. Individuals and public officials may detest and condemn such speech, and platforms may choose not to carry it, but to insert the government into regulation of such expression would both set a troubling precedent and undermine our current First Amendment principles in ways that should concern Americans across the political spectrum.
Actually, Tim Walz, the First Amendment Does Protect Misinformation and ‘Hate Speech’ | National Review
Kamala Harris’s running mate is wrong: Free speech, including potentially misleading or offensive speech, isn’t a threat to democracy.www.nationalreview.com
It shouldn’t. I never said it should. I was explaining to Joel what is being asked.
