[smutticus]

If I host content in the United States that is illegal in Iran does that mean I can be extradited to Iran to face charges?

I hope this kid fights this tooth and nail with good lawyers. He needs good representation as this case has potential to set very important precedents surrounding basic issues of sovereignty and jurisdictional precedence.

Is the US government going to argue that physical location is irrelevant on the internet? Does a crime committed on the internet happen simultaneously in every country? I'm really curious how the US government will present their arguments in this case. And equally curious how much the UK is willing to lose its right of sovereignty.

[lifeisstillgood]

That depends if the USA was foolish enough to sign such and agreement with Iran. Extraditions are basically quid pro quo contracts between nations. We signed a doozy.

The UK signed an extradition agreement a few years back, basically saying we (UK) will allow the US to extradite for crimes that are only crimes in the USA. And we get no reciprocity. Oh, and we need to prove your murders committed crimes to a much higher standard of proof than the other way round.

It is a controversial measure - to be honest more controverisal for the 'just what photos of the prime minster and cabinet did the CIA really have?' as opposed to any shock that the UK government failed once again to stand up for itself.

No, not bitter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

[rplnt]

Isn't the case over? I thought the extradition trial ended months ago.

[planetguy]

No, because there's no extradition treaty between the US and Iran. Extradition treaties only get set up between countries with a reasonable sort of trust in the fairness of each others' legal systems.

Extradition between the UK and US is usually pretty easy, except in cases where the defendant is likely to face the death penalty in the US; the UK currently has an issue with this.