“In your second example, if a Swiss banker conducted a transaction with a U.S. bank and did not adhere to U.S. banking law, then they did violate U.S. law and can be tried in absentia. They are not being tried for something that is legal in their own country, they are being tried for not following U.S. law.”
Then what happens someday when you’re on a trip to Germany (for instance) and when you land at the airport you get arrested and sent to the UK to face trial for writing things on Free Republic that violate UK hate speech laws?
Will you stand on principle and passively accept your punishment?
Maybe I am missing an emanation of a penumbra, but this concept seems very straightforward, and yes, Neapolitano does indeed muddy the issue by not being straightforward.
My expert legal opinion is that foreigners suck, including their backwards, liberty-trampling laws.
Will you stand on principle and passively accept your punishment?
The two examples are not equivalent. In the first example a person was doing business with a U.S. bank, subject to U.S. regulations, even if they are not physically in the U.S.
In your example, the Free Republic server is hosted in the United States, giving no jurisdiction whatsoever to the U.K.