The HOMEFRONT Act is a GRANITE-style foreign censorship shield bill, the seventh such GRANITE-architecture bill or model policy to be advanced by American legislators in the last seven months, and the third such bill to be advanced in the last ten days. I anticipate there will be even more GRANITE-style bills, both state and federal, in the next several months.
|
|||||
Samizdata quote of the day – should this be called the “Fuck OfCom Act”?September 9th, 2026 |
 4 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – should this be called the “Fuck OfCom Act”?Leave a Reply |
   |
||||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
We’re at a legal transition point concerning cross-border happenings.
Say I’m in Germany, and I fire an arrow into the air over the border into France, and hit Mohammad the Frenchman.
What can a Frenchman do to me? French law and courts have no jurisdiction in a separate country.
So, we have treaties between countries to handle this. In my example, a French court, after a legal request from the injured party, will send an extradition request to Germany, and I will likely end up being shipped to France to answer for my act.
But what if Germany has constitutional protection for shooting arrows into the air? What if Germany sees that act as a long-existing Right of each citizen?
Then Germany will refuse the extradition request.
Similar to how the USA refuses UK court extradition requests for someone within the USA who has exercised his right to free speech and has been heard doing so in the UK, to their dismay.
But if I insult a UK copper, and I live in Minnesota, USA, I am safe from UK legal process. UNLESS I own property of some sort in the UK. Then, the UK can take jurisdiction over my money instead of over me. (Jurisdiction in rem versus jurisdiction in personam.)
The new USA effort would basically remove that source of recovery from the UK courts, by allowing people who have had property seized by the UK for such “protected” crimes to seize UK assets that are here in the USA, along with some costs and fees to discourage more UK theft.
The UK has a LOT of assets over here.
Thank you, bobby b, for the legal situational knowledge.
I suspect a lot of other problematic countries (China!) have significant assets in the US as well. I would love to see Trump seize some of those Chinese assets as compensation for waging viral war on us.
It bothers me to have to describe the UK as “problematic”…I hope they can regain their sovereignty–the citizens, not the bastards in power.
Few Democrats will support such Bills into Statutes – especially AFTER the elections where, thanks to the failure to overthrow the IRI regime (the absurd efforts to reason with people who believe that if they are killed by infidels they will go to paradise – “if you do this, we will do that” does not work with such people) the Democrats are likely to have a majority.
Since the time of President Woodrow Wilson (formally a very senior academic – and typical of the sort of Collectivist who was taking over the universities, even back then) a faction of the Democrats has supported both censorship (judges can be appointed who will wipe their backsides with the 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights) and international (world) “governance”.
Now, 2026, that faction includes almost all Democrat Senators and members of the House of Representatives.
“Are you saying that the vast majority of Democrat Senators and members of the House are against the Bill of Rights” – YES they are, or, as they would put it, they “interpret” the Bill of Rights differently – the Tenth Amendment went long ago (when the Supreme Court decided that the words “general welfare” were not the PURPOSE of the specific spending powers granted to Congress, but were, in themselves, a “general welfare spending power” – which makes the listing of spending powers in Article One, Section Eight pointless, and the Tenth Amendment meaningless) and, as bobby b knows only too well, inventive Supreme Court justices can find ways to make the 1st and 2nd Amendments meaningless as well.
Censorship, “Gun Control”, international “governance” is very much the agenda of the International Community, both government and corporate (as they are joined at the hip via the monetary and financial system – and via various international organizations) and the Democrats are on board with that agenda.
They want to turn the United States into the United Kingdom – but, please remember, the agenda is NOT just that – Britain itself is only part way down the road to the objective of the International Community.
This objective being total control over every aspect of the lives of ordinary people – totalitarianism.
They are quite open about this – it is in the documents and discussions approved by international organizations.
So “they will just turn America into Britain – and Britain is not that bad” misses the basic point that the process is not yet finished in Britain – by the time the international establishment are finished there is to be no liberty, none at all, for ordinary people – not in Britain, not in the United States, not anywhere.
The frustrating thing is that there is still time to save the Midterms.
Whatever one thinks of the decision by President Trump in February 2026 (part of the 47 year struggle with the Islamic Republic of Iran) the war against the IRI regime could still be won (IF only the Americans would fight-to-win – to overthrow the IRI) – there is still time, but there is no sign that President Trump is going to take the war seriously and fight-to-win – he is still locked into the “limited war” mindset, with everything being based on “if you do this – we will do that”.
Such an approach is not correct when dealing with sincere followers of Islam – as they believe that if they die fighting infidels they (the sincere followers of Islam) go to paradise – for fighting for the objective of spreading Islamic rule over the whole world – the objective stated in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
“If you do this, we will do that” is an utterly wrong approach when dealing with such people.
This is why, for example, I was so shocked (indeed horrified) when the former head of Shin Bet (the internal security service in Israel – their version of MI5) talked about his strategy of “deterring” attack.
One can not “deter” attacks from sincere followers of Islam – as they believe that if they, or their children (or whoever) are killed by infidels, they go to paradise and have eternal reward.
The former head of Shin Bet showed he did not have a clue what Islam is – that he did not know “Islam 101” as it were, he showed ignorance at a truly astonishing level.
As the commander of the Islamic army besieging Alexandra said, long ago (but it is just as true today) “you love life, we love death – therefore we will win”.
The intelligent and learned people now in charge of, for example, Dearborn Michigan – know this very well.