If I go to Saudi Arabia after having called for their leader to be executed on X for his treatment of women, yeah, probably not a good idea to go.
If I go to Iran after saying Khamenei deserves a rocket to his mansion, yeah, probably not a good idea to go.
If I go to Europe after having run a multi-million dollar scheme affecting European countries by white-labelling services from North Korea (legal in Brazil), and I'm a Brazilian citizen and know Brazil almost never extradites, yeah, probably not a good idea to go.
If I go to the US with my two 12 year old brides from Niger, yeah, probably not a good idea to go.
You're proposing an alternative where people can just commit crimes with no recourse from the victims simply because a border exists somewhere and they commit the crimes on one side of the border.
Would you expect it to be reasonable for Canadian citizens to be shooting at Americans on the border and it unreasonable for American authorities to arrest them if they came to America?
Physical violence is incomparable to working at a company that did something that would be illegal in a certain jurisdiction. Should the person maintaining Clearview's website be arrested in the EU simply because they work there?
Why isn't violent crime comparable to stalking crime? Why is it socially acceptable to hoard personal information about someone and pictures of them as long as someone does it under the auspices of a business but it's creepy and weird to do it as a lone-wolf stalker type? Maybe they're both terrible and creepy business models and the EU is right to prosecute anyone who does it, articles of incorporation or not.
