[pclmulqdq]

You will stopped from doing that by American law. The difference between this and that is that Ofcom believes it can regulate conduct that never touches British soil. Ofcom notably is not setting up a "great firewall," but instead sending takedown notices to websites about content that is already blocked from British IPs.

[jolmg]

> You will stopped from doing that by American law. The difference between this and that is that Ofcom believes it can regulate conduct that never touches British soil.

You're showing yourself to believe that America can regulate conduct that never touches American soil.

[pclmulqdq]

America won't go after you. America will go after Americans who access your site and American ISPs will block your site. That's not America regulating your behavior. You're still free to do whatever you want.

If you enter America, there may also be consequences, but you don't need to enter America.

[bluGill]

America may well go after you and we have a large military to do it with. most often a simple diplomatic message will shut you down - most countries have their own child porn laws, and the exceptions (if any) are going to face problems as this is something the us takes seriously.

You picked a bad example - there are many US crimes that you could get away with if done elsewhere within the local laws, it generally isn't seen as worth bothering with when done elsewhere if the other country doesn't care.

[jolmg]

> If you enter America, there may also be consequences

That isn't much different. Say an adult American drinks alcohol in America; then they travel to a country where alcohol is illegal. Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America?

[pclmulqdq]

> That isn't much different

There's a world of difference here. Ofcom is claiming to be able to shut down an American website for content generated in America, stored in America, and shown only to Americans. There are no UK citizens in this chain at all. This sets up Ofcom as having global censorship authority even over content seen elsewhere.

> Should they be prosecuted in that country for having drank in America?

In my opinion, no, but some countries are hardasses about this. If you want to do things that are illegal in certain places, you should not plan on traveling to those places. Usually, they will just refuse you entry but you kind of do put yourself at their mercy if you touch their soil. This is how the world works.

[ricudis]

Singapore does exactly that, and they explicitly warn outbound Singaporean travelers that any drug use outside Singapore will be prosecuted as if it has happened in Singapore.

[jolmg]

If it's just the outbound Singaporeans, that would be different because they'd at least have the citizenship to claim jurisdiction on.

[ricudis]

They're warning everybody, not just Singaporeans. It's just that Singaporeans are the most likely to go travel abroad, have some fun, and then come back like nothing has happened. But if somebody inbound gets caught in a random drug test at the airport (they do that), he's going to be prosecuted just the same no matter their citizenship. There were several (in-)famous examples of this happening.

[umanwizard]

Dunno about “should”, but they certainly can be.

[hibern8]

You must not remember the Kim Dotcom raid.

[pclmulqdq]

Yeah, extradition treaties are a thing, and I believe he wasn't a citizen of New Zealand so the US actually could make the request. The hypothetical above can be narrowed to "you are doing something completely legal in your country of citizenship or some other non-extradition country but illegal in the US" if you want to get more precise about it.

[macinjosh]

We are America. We can do whatever we damn well please because we have the biggest guns and most money. Welcome to the how the world really works. Not saying it’s right.