Join Now / Sign In
Ask a Question
Honestly, I think you can rest assured that you will be protected by what folks in the good ole US of A call a "double standard". We are going to demand the extradition of people from other countries for violating our laws, even when the actually connection to the US is tenuous at best, and many times we will get it. It's just not worth it for many countries to bother with protecting an individual citizen, when in return for their acquiescence, they can receive access to US data bases, shared law enforcement tools, and maintain a "good relationship" with the US. Is it bogus? Yep, it sure is, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. Just ask Kim Dotcom and the government of New Zealand. Or Julian Assange.
The example, you used of Thailand is interesting, because there is in fact an American imprisoned for writing negative things about the Thai King while living in the United States. However, not only is that not illegal in the US, it is protected speech under the 1st Amendment, so I seriously doubt the US would ever entertain the possibility of extradition. However, when he went to Thailand, he was arrested and as far as I know is still sitting in prison there.
The specific example of Richard O'Dwyer reflects the current pro-censorship climate in much of the British Government. The British have order Pirates Bay to be blocked by all ISPs, and are seeking ever expanding monitoring of citizens' internet use. A week or two ago, there was a proposal by the Home Office to allow the "authorities" in the UK to have unrestricted access to all of the browsing history, emails, and texts messages of everyone in the country. Frankly, I think they want to make an example out of this kid. I used to live in England, and I think the Tories are making a big mistake by going along this road. Funny thing is that they opposed similar Big Brotherism when Labour was in power.