Legally hazardous for a US-based website to make itself available for British readers to visit? “[Attorney Giovanni] Di Stefano claims that he has consulted several QCs and has been told that British authorities could have powers to act against foreign-based broadcasters and websites and issue a European arrest warrant. They could be liable for breaching an English court order guaranteeing anonymity to the blackmail victim and witnesses if their speculation reached Britain.” (Adam Fresco and Dominic Kennedy, “Charge anyone naming Royal ‘victim’, says accused’s lawyer”, Times Online, Oct. 31).
4 Comments
Oh, someone should post the victims name in the same way some people do Harry Potter spoilers. You know, show a picture of a cake, with the name of the victim written in the frosting. Or post a YouTube video called “Mom’s first time on waterskis!” where the woman screams out the person’s name.
Bring it, John Bull. The chance of extradition is approaching zero.
Update from the Guardian.
Unnamed royal is no secret on the web
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2205233,00.html
“Anyone really interested in knowing the identity of the minor royal who has allegedly been blackmailed can find out very easily. An English high court judge has made an order forbidding the media here from revealing the name, but the ban cannot apply to entries on the internet emanating in foreign countries.
…..
And by foreign include Scotland, whose separate legal system puts it outside the control of the English courts.”
Wow, and people complain about the US nabbing foreign executives (when they drop by) when their business is performed here… Nothing like a little global authority, eh?