If I make a law in my country that allows me to throw rocks at people in another bordering country without repercussions, then that other country should just let me do it because those are my country's laws?
If Netherlands allow smoking marijuana, and your country doesn't, should you remove all the signposts pointing towards the Netherlands (DNS block) and block the border crossings (IP block), because you're afraid some of your people will go there to get high?
You're conflating intent of one law with execution of another.
No one would do that, because it's stupid and ineffective.
Instead you potentially punish the citizen for having committed a crime on foreign soil, and/or arrest the dealer should they come to your country. This is something nearly every nation state already does. Another thing to look at is extradition treaties.
In the case of disinformation, punishing someone for reading it doesn't stop the spread, but the manufacture of it is undesirable. Current execution is the best method to reach the intent, because doing things like blowing up webservers is undesirable.
how do you know if something is disinformation if your government blocks your direct access to the content and suggests that you read local moderated outlets instead? You just blindly delegated your conclusion forming capacity to a third party that decides for yourself.
Because all this content is still easily available, it’s just that you need to consciously want to access it instead of being served it by “I’m being lucky”.
> Instead you potentially punish the citizen for having committed a crime on foreign soil, and/or arrest the dealer should they come to your country. This is something nearly every nation state already does. Another thing to look at is extradition treaties.
But they didn't commit a crime on foreign soil... they did something legal there.
The servers, manufacture and the information is created and stored in russia, and we're just "travelling" (with our IP packets) to russia to read that content there (I'm assuming the servers are located there).
I still remember when freedom of speech was a right people fought for, even if they didn't like what "the other person" said.... sadly, this is changing and bringing with it dark times.
> But they didn't commit a crime on foreign soil... they did something legal there.
Irrelevant to how a state chooses to organize its criminal code. If the act is considered severely criminal in nature then most nation states do not care where it occurred, nor should they.
> I still remember when freedom of speech was a right people fought for, even if they didn't like what "the other person" said.... sadly, this is changing and bringing with it dark times.
Lies by foreign actors are not the same as opinions or criticism of a country's own citizens.
They are an offense against the public and should be policed. This isn't about simply "not liking what someone said". This is about statements that have negative value; created for the express purpose of causing confusion and harm.
If I make a law in my country that allows me to throw rocks at people in another bordering country without repercussions, then that other country should just let me do it because those are my country's laws?