I'm confused to see the SPEECH Act (2010) used as a legal basis: I had thought that act was limited to foreign defamation claims—not as a general First Amendment catch-all. And the text of the law seems (IANAL!) to say that explicitly?
> "Nothing in this section shall be construed to—(1) affect the enforceability of any foreign judgment other than a foreign judgment for defamation..."
6 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 27.4 ms ] thread[.pdf] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/26076733/govuscourtsd...
I'm confused to see the SPEECH Act (2010) used as a legal basis: I had thought that act was limited to foreign defamation claims—not as a general First Amendment catch-all. And the text of the law seems (IANAL!) to say that explicitly?
> "Nothing in this section shall be construed to—(1) affect the enforceability of any foreign judgment other than a foreign judgment for defamation..."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/4102
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
If they consider Ofcom to have no jurisdiction over them, why not just ignore Ofcom?
Why attempt to sue Ofcom in a court that Ofcom could claim has no jurisdiction over itself?