This is because your home country has jurisdiction over you and is more than free to write laws punishing you for whatever they want.
This is country B considering something a citizen of country A did while in country A to be a crime. And not that it even matters but in country A that thing is legal. Like country B is a sovereign state and can arrest you for whatever it wants while you're there but the bigger question is whether country A should be mad about it and impress themselves on country B to get them to not do that.
That's really the issue here and exactly what the GRANITE Act he's proposing does.
It seems like the US is actually being too nice here. It's a perfectly reasonable position to reject the notion that a country has global jurisdiction and to consider such an arrest to be a hostile act against the US. I would be pissed the moment a country thought it could punish one of my citizens for something they did while under my jurisdiction—even something that I consider to be illegal.
There are cases in which refugees were tried in the EU, when there was a suspicion that they committed war crimes in Syria while being citizens of the country.
Or imagine that country X with age of consent of 18 would find out that the citizen of country X while home, married 8yo child and impregnated her.
It's the same principle. So there is nothing special about extending jurisdiction beyond your own borders.
The issue in this case is that Freedom of Speech is such a fundamental right, that it should not be forbidden anywhere in the world. Sadly, it is forbidden in most Western countries, let alone developing.
The idea is that a website in the US can be accessed by UK users, no matter what blocks are put in place on either end. Agree that the US shouldn't be nice about this though.
This is country B considering something a citizen of country A did while in country A to be a crime. And not that it even matters but in country A that thing is legal. Like country B is a sovereign state and can arrest you for whatever it wants while you're there but the bigger question is whether country A should be mad about it and impress themselves on country B to get them to not do that.
That's really the issue here and exactly what the GRANITE Act he's proposing does.
It seems like the US is actually being too nice here. It's a perfectly reasonable position to reject the notion that a country has global jurisdiction and to consider such an arrest to be a hostile act against the US. I would be pissed the moment a country thought it could punish one of my citizens for something they did while under my jurisdiction—even something that I consider to be illegal.