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.

>>tptace+EC
Extradition clauses allow foreign countries to reach out and pluck Americans from the comfort of their Constitutional freedoms, and the technicality of such extradition provisions, should they be enacted, would allow foreign countries to enforce their laws on U.S. citizens in the U.S.

If you don't think that sort of thing could happen, you should recall that the Trans-Pacific treaty being pushed in the U.S. by the Obama administration included provisions allowing U.N bodies to inspect compliance and sue local governments for things like climate violations (wealth transfer) or even firearms possession and compliance (end-run around the 2nd amendment). That is, these treaties were seen as a way to sneak in enforcement from extra-national entities for rules explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution.

That particular treaty was dropped, in part, due to public outcry against it.

Liberty requires maintenance and defense. You cannot simply assume that once we enjoy some particular freedom there is no way to retreat or regress from it such that we lose it. Bureaucrats that cannot be fired by the head of the Executive branch are another example of this erosion by technicality.

So I don't find your conclusion obvious at all. I wish it were so simple.

This kind of rule-making follows the trick of getting the public to trade safety for liberty. The problem is that the same governments have created the lack of safety, provoking the unrest they know seek additional power to quash. We should say no.