zlacker

>>walter+(OP)
UN cybercrime treaty was unanimously approved by 200 countries this week.

>>walter+Wx
Well, that’s depressing. Were EFF recommendations applied?

>>acheon+AC
EFF tweet, https://x.com/eff/status/1821672613468569628

  Member States traded away existing human rights safeguards to reach a contrived consensus for a treaty that will endanger journalists, dissenters, human rights activists, and every day people around the world.

Related thread: >>41210110

>>walter+jc1
How does the Supreme Court handle interpreting of treaty agreements? It seems like the language of the 1st amendment would prevent the US from entering into an agreement that violated it?

>>bright+rO8
The short answer: it's really complicated. In a broad stroke, a treaty agreement is roughly akin to Congress passing a law, but the roles of the treaty itself versus enabling laws depends on several factors such as "is the treaty actually a treaty?"

As it pertains to your question, the Constitution (and its amendments) are the supreme law of the land, and a treaty stipulation that requires the government to do something unconstitutional would have no legal effect.