zlacker

>>walter+(OP)
A note for US people: treaties don't supersede US laws unless they're self-executing† (that is: unless they have language directly and specifically compelling their implementation, rather than requiring legislatures to enact enabling legislation), and self-executing treaties don't negate federal law (the "last-in-time rule" requires courts to enforce whatever the most recent act was, so Congress can change how even a self-executing treaty is enforced) --- and nothing supersedes the Constitution, so a (say) UK hate speech law could not be enforced in the US even after the adoption of this treaty.

† The previous cybercrime convention was; I don't know about this one.

>>tptace+zi
That's a fairly silly "don't worry." Any treaty signed has an expectation on Congress to pass corresponding legislation to make it enforceable in domestic courts. The Supremacy Clause is intended to force treaty compliance.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/sec...

At this point, there's no good reason to trust people in government as they seem to all have been captured by oligarchy, including here in the U.S. So this isn't a "don't worry" situation, it's something that should actively be contended with at a political level.

>>slowmo+fo
It's not clear to me which of the things I said you believe to be incorrect.

>>tptace+lq
> so a (say) UK hate speech law could not be enforced in the US even after the adoption of this treaty.

I believe the conclusion that it can't happen in the U.S. is incorrect.

>>slowmo+sB
It obviously cannot happen in the US: neither the executive nor legislative branches have the power to bind any law that contravenes the US Constitution. It would be a pretty big loophole if they could simply agree to treaties to annul 1A. A ratified, enabled treaty is coequal with US federal law, not with the Constitution.