It worked quite well in the reverse direction for BetOnSports. Companies tend to underestimate the reach of governments, even governments they are not nominally the subject of.
Re: Statement Regarding Ofcom's Reported Provisional Notice - 4chan Community Support LLC
Byrne & Storm, P.C. ( @ByrneStorm ) and Coleman Law, P.C. ( @RonColeman ) represent 4chan Community Support LLC ("4chan").
According to press reports, the U.K. Office of Communications ("Ofcom") has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.
4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.
American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.
If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles.
United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.
The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with U.K. censorship codes (according to reporting in the Telegraph on July 30th).
Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and that solution must come from the highest levels of American government.
We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to the United States to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.
It’s funny. Their “Advertise” page explicitly mentions UK on demographics section (7% of users). Both Advertise and Rules pages explicitly mention local along with US laws. It looks like they actually do business in UK serving ads to UK users and thus should be subject to local laws themselves.
If they want their assets, they will have to use U.S courts to get them and U.S courts will refuse to enforce British law that violates the first amendment. It's pretty simple actually. If they had assets in Britain, then they could get to them, but they don't.
Serving ads to UK users does not grant the UK enforcement jurisdiction over 4chan. They have no presence, assets, or agents in the UK. If the UK still attempts to issue a judgement contrary to the first amendment, the constitution in general, and/or US law, it will not be recognized by US courts.
To me that response seems ridiculous in several ways. If they think that UK law doesn't apply to them (which seems very credible) why react at all? Describing what Ofcom is doing, which is, as far as I can tell, just doing the job it was set up to do, as "illegal"? Suggesting that 4chan has some connection to "technology firms"?
If they were going to write anything at all, how about "I fart in your general direction"?
> If they think that UK law doesn't apply to them (which seems very credible) why react at all?
If I get a speeding ticket in the mail from another state I've never been to, I'm not going to ignore it, I'm going to explain to the court why it's invalid. Ignoring legal notices, even from other jurisdictions than one's own, is generally unwise (with some exceptions). So is responding with insults instead of concrete legal justification for why this is inapplicable.
The response is effectively that, but with a framing much more amenable to their own future defense on both legal and political fronts, if ever required.
USA is all about free speech because the big tech companies are in USA and behind closed doors do what the US Government tells them. If Meta/Google/Twitter/TikTok were foreign companies they'd likely be banned or regulated to be allowed to operate here.
The big tech companies are currently lobbying the US government to bring identity verification laws to us at a federal level. They stand to grow even more rich and even more powerful by being the gatekeepers of identity. Imagine if you could only log in to Hacker News by using your Google account.
It will kill whatever is left of small independent communities on the internet, and it's a disaster for free speech.
> TikTok Inc., which offers the TikTok app in the United States, is incorporated in California and Delaware, and is subject to U.S. laws and regulations governing privacy and data security.
USA is all about free speech because it is literally the first right in the Bill of Rights. Regardless of the extensive infringements we've suffered against our basic human rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, there is a limit to how far they can take it.
Why do they think that organizations who operate completely outside of the UK, accept no money from UK citizens or otherwise do business there, fall within their jurisdiction? I think realistically all that could happen is they tell ISPs to block it.
ISPs blocking it will mostly work, I think. Most people can't be bothered with a VPN so if 4chan is inaccessible they'll just read/watch something else instead.
I wouldn't put it past them, they've already ran tv news pieces (or maybe it was an ad, I don't watch tv, let alone British tv) basically saying that if you use a VPN, that you're not thinking of the children.
Maybe they will say British citizens use it in foreign countries as their loophole. I don’t agree with it and I’m not a lawyer but I’m just predicting their argument.
Now, there are other less inspiring examples (e.g. SESTA/FOSTA)! and this didn't somehow form a durable political consensus (or an entrenched legal principle), but people looking at this issue in advance would have thought, and did think, that obviously this legislation would pass. And then it didn't.
Readit News
Full text:
"BYRNE & STORM, P.C.
ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
Re: Statement Regarding Ofcom's Reported Provisional Notice - 4chan Community Support LLC
Byrne & Storm, P.C. ( @ByrneStorm ) and Coleman Law, P.C. ( @RonColeman ) represent 4chan Community Support LLC ("4chan").
According to press reports, the U.K. Office of Communications ("Ofcom") has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.
4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.
American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.
If necessary, we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles.
United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.
The Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, was reportedly warned by the White House to cease targeting Americans with U.K. censorship codes (according to reporting in the Telegraph on July 30th).
Despite these warnings, Ofcom continues its illegal campaign of harassment against American technology firms. A political solution to this matter is urgently required and that solution must come from the highest levels of American government.
We call on the Trump Administration to invoke all diplomatic and legal levers available to the United States to protect American companies from extraterritorial censorship mandates.
Our client reserves all rights."
(There was a worrisome blog post someone shared here on HN a few weeks ago.)
Dead Comment
In short, the UK can kick rocks.
If they were going to write anything at all, how about "I fart in your general direction"?
If I get a speeding ticket in the mail from another state I've never been to, I'm not going to ignore it, I'm going to explain to the court why it's invalid. Ignoring legal notices, even from other jurisdictions than one's own, is generally unwise (with some exceptions). So is responding with insults instead of concrete legal justification for why this is inapplicable.
It will kill whatever is left of small independent communities on the internet, and it's a disaster for free speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAd-OOrdyMw
> TikTok Inc., which offers the TikTok app in the United States, is incorporated in California and Delaware, and is subject to U.S. laws and regulations governing privacy and data security.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
Seems likely. And then that won't work, and they'll tell ISPs to block VPN traffic too.
If they can be used in the UK, then the same general principle applies here as with pirate radio and over-the-horizon artillery.
The attempt is unlikely to work, but with Trump who knows, so they will probably indeed tell ISPs to block it.
Deleted Comment
Surveillance is inevitable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act#Opposit...
Now, there are other less inspiring examples (e.g. SESTA/FOSTA)! and this didn't somehow form a durable political consensus (or an entrenched legal principle), but people looking at this issue in advance would have thought, and did think, that obviously this legislation would pass. And then it didn't.
Deleted Comment