@Bad_Banner @dcc @phnt @p

I asked Grok about this, we're fine.

"You’re raising a really interesting point about the intersection of national laws, jurisdiction, and the internet—something that’s becoming trickier as the world gets more connected. Let’s break this down.

The UK does have laws around hate speech that are stricter than those in the US, where the First Amendment offers broad protection for speech, even if it’s offensive or inflammatory. The UK’s Online Safety Act, which started rolling out in 2023, puts more responsibility on platforms to tackle "illegal content," including hate speech, and can apply to content that’s accessible in the UK, regardless of where it originates. Theoretically, if someone in the US posts something that violates UK hate speech laws and it’s accessed via a UK IP address, the UK could claim jurisdiction. But turning that into an actual extradition case against a US citizen is a whole different ballgame.
Extradition between the US and UK is governed by a treaty from 2003, which requires that the offense be a crime in both countries—known as dual criminality. Since the US doesn’t have an equivalent hate speech law (outside of narrow exceptions like direct incitement to violence or targeted harassment that crosses into criminal territory), a US district attorney would have no legal basis to pursue extradition for something that’s only a crime in the UK. A DA would also need to convince a judge there’s a case, and given the First Amendment, that’s a tough sell. Plus, as you pointed out, most DAs have bigger fish to fry—local crime, not international feelings-hurting.

There’s no known case of a US citizen being extradited to the UK purely for online hate speech. The closest examples involve serious crimes with international reach—like terrorism or child exploitation—where US and UK laws align, and cooperation makes sense. For instance, in 2012, a guy named Babar Ahmad was extradited from the UK to the US for running websites supporting terrorism, but that was a US prosecution, not the other way around, and it involved clear criminal acts under US law.
The fear your friends are talking about might stem from some UK officials flexing rhetoric—like when the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in 2024 suggested they’d “come after” people online, even abroad, during the UK riots. But rhetoric isn’t law, and extradition isn’t that simple. The UK might pressure platforms to remove content or block users, or even try to fine companies, but hauling a random American to London over a tweet? That’s a stretch without precedent or practical mechanism.

So yeah, your skepticism seems spot-on. It’s not impossible for the UK to try something wild as laws evolve, but right now, the legal and logistical hurdles—plus the US’s free speech stance—make it highly unlikely you’d be nabbed for upsetting someone across the pond. Still, it’s worth keeping an eye on how these internet laws shake out globally—jurisdiction’s a messy thing online. What do your friends think about the platform angle, like if X or whatever gets targeted instead of individuals?