“The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the water’s edge just because a foreign bureaucrat sends a threatening letter. If you’re in Wyoming, you speak freely. Period.”
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
EconomicsPolitics |
Samizdata quote of the day – GRANITESamizdata Illuminatus (Arkham, Massachusetts) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · Internet · Slogans & Quotations “The First Amendment doesn’t stop at the water’s edge just because a foreign bureaucrat sends a threatening letter. If you’re in Wyoming, you speak freely. Period.” February 2nd, 2026 |
 9 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – GRANITELeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
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. |
|||||
I don’t understand
What bureaucrat?
What threatening letter?
What country is the bureaucrat from?
What does Wyoming have to do with this?
The first amendment only protects you in the US, so how does the water’s edge fit in?
Chris – the coloured text with the name “Daniel Singh” is a link (I often miss such things myself – so I am not attacking you), click on the link, and you will understand.
Today the British and French governments launched attacks on the “X” of Elon Musk – they came up with various excuses, but their real motive is that they do not like the free expression of opinions with which they disagree. Their definition of “free speech” is the same as that of Robespierre – Freedom of Speech means (to them) the right, indeed the duty, to agree with the “General Will” (they decide what this “General Will” – if most ordinary people disagree, too-bad), NOT to disagree with it.
“X” is an American company and Mr Musk is an American citizen – if other nations, Britain, France, Australia, Canada, wherever, wish to attack Freedom of Speech on this platform they should be told they forget about exporting anything to the United States (“hit our companies – and we will hit yours, your goods as well as your services”) and that they can shove any idea of a military alliance (NATO and so on) up their backside.
After all, we are told, endlessly, that these military alliances are due to “shared values” – if these “values” do not include Freedom of Speech, then they are just waffle.
The “rules based international order” is not supportive of Freedom of Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or other fundamental Civil Liberties – indeed it is fundamentally opposed to such things (under fair seeming language – it is utterly evil).
It is not the heir to the American Revolution – it is the heir to the French Revolution.
The “rules based international order” is the enemy, the enemy of both national independence and individual liberty.
To those people giggling to themselves thinking “soon the Supreme Court will end Trump’s tariffs, then we can impose Censorship, and the international Small Arms convention, and…..” – a ban on imports from nations that have shown themselves to be hostile, is NOT a tariff.
If the governments (officials and front persons such as Sir Keir Starmer and President Macron) of Britain, France, Australia and-so-on wish to impose tyranny on their own citizens (which they clearly do), that is their own affair – but their “laws” must not touch American citizens or American companies, that is the position Wyoming is taking.
There’s also the case of 4Chan v OFCOM, a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to block Ofcom from enforcing UK regulations on US-based entities – as Ofcom’s actions violate the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the US Constitution.
More on the general principle here https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/09/30/lex-loci-machinae/
Melanie Dawes, the Chief Executive of Ofcom.
Although they aren’t in Wyoming, it’s in response to the threatening emails sent by Ofcom to 4chan and KiwiFarms.
The United Kingdom.
Nothing, other than it wanting to confirm its position before Ofcom, or anyone else, tries anything.
It also upturns Westphalian Sovereignty. Countries shall not interfere with the internal workings of other countries.
Paul,
Thanks for the explanation, now I’m just confused.
My understanding is that if some country chooses to ban X because it allows “hate speech”, then that is their right. BUT it only applies to their country. If they try to apply it to other countries, it can safely be ignored and this proposed law in Wyoming is unnecessary.
What am I missing?
The UK thinks that they can pass laws that the entire world must obey?
What chutzpah!