At 11:33 PM 11/18/97 +0100, Peter Herngaard wrote:

Does the First Amendment prevent the Congress from passing a law that would make it illegal for anyone who is outside the United States to set up a web site in the U. S. in violation of a local speechcode?

For example, a German nazi organization could establish a WWW site in California out of reach of German law.

It is not against US law to claim to be or to be a Nazi so the action is legal in the US.

Would it be constitutional to make a law barring foreign citizens from violating the speech codes of their home countries using a U. S. ISP?

The US currently has laws governing foreign ownership of publications in the US. Ted Turner had to become a citizen. Don't remember the details but precedent for publications not intended primarily for US consumption. (A CNN of the future will be an interesting question.) At least by international custom, a person another country is bound by the laws of the country is in. Doing business in the US is bound by the laws of the US. A non-US citizen setting up a website in the US receives the same protections as anyone else doing business in the US. This is a principle of international commerce. As a matter of diplomacy, international conventions, such a law would not be passed. The larger issue is it would incorporate the foreign law into US law and in consequence case law stemming from it. At the moment, on more important issues like taxes, because there is no common tax law, even extradition for tax law violations is not possible. As to the constitutionality of it, strict reading says no. It is difficult to conceive that original intent would have meant Congress could have passed laws prohibiting speaking ill of the King of England. As to the ISP situation. The US has held that if you call for it, it can not be regulated. Dial 1-900-sex4all can not be subject to federal law. The internet is at worst a 900 number by analogy. It can not be legislated against only regulated as to the mechanics of charging and transactions, not content. A lot of words but from what has gone before, no both constitutionally and diplomatically and as a matter of economic policy. -=-=- The 2nd guarantees all the rest.