Ah, but with the links to the concept of terrorism inherent to posting videos of violent murders, it would be rather easy for the US to deal with people posting videos that violate US laws on foreign servers.
The location of the server is known and can be plotted down to the inch with GPS. Both Predator drones (with Hellfire missiles) and Tomahawk cruise missiles can be GPS-guided.
That's nothing new. If someone actually invents the flying skateboards from the Back to the Future trilogy, they won't be able to call them hoverboards because that name is already trademarked by a company that makes two-wheeled electric skateboards.
What ECA is referring to is that if it is constitutional to require a license in order to exercise the right to freedom of speech to make a truthful and factual statement (with an attached mathematical proof even), then it cannot be unconstitutional to require such a license (and accompanying competence test) to become a politician.
Given that the court has essentially ruled that translating dialog into another language violates copyright, the fact that political speeches and corporate press releases are both copyrighted would seem to mean that the language translator profession has now been outlawed in the Netherlands.
So they'd have the rights of a state legislator when inside the state capitol and in their home district, but outside those places they'd be private citizens with no special privileges? Sounds good to me.
I'm envisioning two convicts riding a prison bus, both shackled to the seat they're in, sometime in the 2020s...
Prisoner A: So, I got convicted of 143 counts of first degree murder, 293 counts of rape, and 47 counts of cannibalism. I'll be in prison for the next 800 years. I notice your shackles are twice as heavy as mine. What did you DO?!?
Prisoner B: I illegally streamed two movies and the Oscars.
If you don't go to school, you go to jail -- and possibly your parents with you. So there's nothing voluntary about mandatory school attendance.
Compared to that voting, having a job and owning a house are much more voluntary acts. By the standard the school districts like to argue, any sort of voluntary participation in society could be made into a voluntary waiver of your rights without violating the Constitution. Even if it's only 'voluntary' in the sense you get forced to volunteer at gunpoint if you decide not to volunteer.
Um...that would make you at least 245 years old -- 1789 being the year the Constitution was written.
The 14th amendment went into effect in 1868, which declared that citizenship begins at birth and did not exempt kids from being citizens. If that's the law you're referring to from when you were a kid, that would make you a minimum of 166 years old.
Even if you're referring to the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case, that would make you a minimum of 65 years old -- that case was in 1969 and ruled that kids DO have rights, always have had rights, and a school needed a damned good reason to try to infringe upon those rights (which the school district in question in that case did not have).
If you are younger than 245, then you are mistaken about kids not having constitutional rights when you were a kid. People younger than 65 don't even have the excuse of kids having rights being an unknown thing when they were kids.
There is no age requirement on citizenship, it begins at birth. Citizens have rights, period. Government officials have always gotten drunk on their petty amounts of power and used it to violate the rights of others. That's nothing new.
One thing the general public seems to have forgotten, is there are all kinda of laws on the books about racketeering, accomplices, conspiracies and so forth. None of those laws contain an exemption for law enforcement personnel.
If you rob a liquor store at gunpoint, get away, then the next day you go over to a friend's house to watch a football game and he provides snacks, that friend is now your accomplice to the robbery. Because he gave material aid and comfort (snacks) to a wanted felon, he's now equally guilty under the law and equally subject to the 5-10 year prison sentence you are facing.
The fact that your friend didn't know you robbed a liquor store is irrelevant. The fact your friend didn't know he was giving material comfort to a criminal? Irrelevant. He was never within ten miles of the crime scene at any time during his entire life? Irrelevant. He's an accomplice after the fact and that's that.
Police officers routinely stand around and watch, providing silent support, as their fellow officers commit crimes. They provide armed on-call backup without asking a single question about whether the use of force is justified. If one cop shoots, they all shoot. Cops brag in the locker room just as much as anyone does in any other job, and cops overhear all kinds stories of illegal actions -- and remain silent.
If a few handfuls of Cheetos and a glass of beer is enough to turn an innocent person into a wanted felon, then any of those things in the previous paragraph absolutely would do the same -- after all, police are not exempted from those laws.
The general public has the bizarre notion that as long as a cop is not the primary actor in a crime, they remain a good cop -- but neither the spirit nor the letter of the law supports that view.