| ▲ | ceejayoz 5 hours ago |
| This is more like the UK fining Parisian bars that courier alcohol to under-18s in the UK. |
|
| ▲ | strideashort 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Not exactly. It’s like fining Parisian bars to hand over alcohol to couriers without checking to whom couriers will deliver it. Couriers = all involved network providers. |
|
| ▲ | tsukikage 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| More like the UK fining US porn publishers for not stopping British kids searching through the hedges in their street |
| |
|
| ▲ | shrubble 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It’s a lot more like banning the importation of books and newspapers that the government doesn’t agree with… |
|
| ▲ | shaky-carrousel 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Which is equally absurd. |
| |
| ▲ | OJFord 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No it isn't? Real example is Amazon, a US company that sells alcohol in the UK, and is required to check age on order & delivery. | | |
| ▲ | qup 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Amazon is an international corporation with UK-incorporated entities. | | |
| ▲ | OJFord 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's true but not relevant to the spirit of the point. | | |
| ▲ | ronsor 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It is relevant. There's a material difference between shipping material overseas and shipping it (and handling it) within the destination country. If someone mails $ProhibitedItem at a USPS to the UK, then it's the job of local UK police and/or customs to reject the parcel if it is prohibited. It's the UK's problem, de facto if not de jure, because the sender is out of reach. If someone with a UK subsidiary and local processing center mails $ProhibitedItem to their center and delivers it to someone in the UK, then that's more than the UK's problem. | | |
| ▲ | jimnotgym an hour ago | parent [-] | | And on an electronic delivery, is a great firewall the equivalent of customs? And therfore the only way to enforce sovereignty? |
|
|
|
|
|
