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.
They can just treat 4chan as malware server or a drug cartel. There exist sanction mechanisms against foreign entities that do not use local law enforcement in which case opinion of US courts will be irrelevant.
>4chan is showing ads on their site, but if your idea had any grounds, the issue would be with the ad network, not 4chan.
It's hard to understand the logic of this statement. Why the ad network? 4chan business is to show ads to users while offering them a platform for conversations. What 3rd party service do they use is irrelevant unless that is by coincidence an UK company.
>More realistically, 4chan will likely be banned by UK ISPs after a court ruling.
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.
Nobody in the world cares about US constitution or opinion of US courts. It is absolutely irrelevant. If American company does business somewhere and breaks local laws, that part of their business can be disrupted or shut down (by blocking traffic, restricting financial transactions to certain entities, blocking shipments), executives may be arrested on arrival, there may be secondary sanctions etc.
This is absolutely common practice happening everywhere. There is a firewall in every country. Think of malware servers that America blocks.
As if any government would ever take any advice from HN... :)
No, seriously, what's your point? That for a G7 government interfering with interests of American companies outside of US jurisdiction it is somehow a problem?
You know that first amendment of the thing you say nobody cares about. A fundamental human right people are giving up in the UK so they can be “protected” from big bad ol 4chan. What a joke…
Last time I checked USA is not the most democratic country in the world (#28 in democracy index below Uruguay, Czechia and Malta), so it is certainly not the role model for freedom. Yes, surprise, there exist other views in the world on how to find the balance between many different fundamental human rights and it does not mean those views reject freedom of speech. They just restrict it differently than America (which has several categories of unprotected speech and ranks lower in press freedom indices than some other countries which may restrict more categories).
It's bad optics to build their own Hadrian's Firewall, so they are trying to bully foreign companies into compliance instead. If they want to go after the ad revenue, they would have to try to identify and prosecute the UK-based companies doing business with 4chan, and they will struggle to do that when they have no ability to subpoena 4chan for their business records.
Such firewall exists everywhere, because courts can block access to various websites on different grounds (malware, copyright infringement etc) everywhere.
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.
Notice how I said “some exceptions,” precisely to head off a comment like that. Or did you read “some exceptions” and think your example wouldn’t qualify?
No, I don’t care what Pakistan thinks of me. But I've been to the UK, and I'll probably go there again. I live my life according to American law, without regard for UK law, but if UK law enforcement publicly announced an investigation of me, I'd find legal representation and respond. (Remotely.)
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.
Could you give some examples which refer to the activities you accuse him of? Examples of actual violations of the Constitution of the United States, that is, not just examples of him deciding things you happen to disagree with.
Separation of Powers and Congressional Authority
• Trump repeatedly challenged or ignored the constitutional boundaries between the executive branch and Congress. This includes refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas related to investigations and attempting to block the release of his financial records, which resulted in the Supreme Court reaffirming Congress’s investigative powers.
• He has used executive orders to unilaterally override or undermine laws enacted by Congress, which the Constitution does not permit.
Use of Military on U.S. Soil
• Trump turned to the military as a “personal police force” against American citizens, particularly in response to protests, which has been accused of violating both federal law and the Constitution’s protections for civil liberties.
War Powers Clause
• He ordered military actions (e.g., bombing Iran) without congressional approval, contradicting the Constitution’s war powers clause that reserves the right to declare war exclusively to Congress.
First Amendment Violations
• Trump’s actions targeting peaceful protesters, threatening lawmakers for their speech, and attempting to punish academic institutions and law firms for political reasons have been labeled unconstitutional violations of free speech and due process rights.
14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
• His administration sought to deny citizenship to people of color born in the U.S., contrary to the clear language of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship.
Punishing Political Enemies and Targeting Institutions
• Trump issued executive orders and directed government agencies to retaliate against law firms and universities perceived as opponents, which experts say violates the equal protection and due process clauses.
Speech and Debate Clause
• Attempts were made to investigate and potentially criminalize speech by Democratic lawmakers, threatening constitutional protections for congressional speech.
Power of the Purse
• Trump encroached upon Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse” by redirecting funds without congressional approval, thus violating the separation of powers.
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.
If that bagel shop will ship bagels to UK soil or accepting money from UK citizens who are currently in UK as 4chan does, it will be subject to UK laws regardless of whether it has legal presence, assets etc. This is not matter of jurisdiction as some of commenters here believe.
UK has limited enforcement options, of course, but it’s their sovereign right to prevent illegal activities and/or punish for them within their capabilities. This is why 4chan lawyers are asking for political response as if UK were a rogue American colony.
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.
They might care about lost advertising dollars, but the UK has no jurisdiction and judgements contrary to the constitution will not be recognized by US courts.
Their reaction puts on record the constitutional/legal barriers, preserves strategic optionality, and possibly preempts escalation that could still cause real headaches. It's strategic, not a sign that they actually think the UK has a case.
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.
It's been a long time since I've had anything to do with 4chan but I believe Tor was blocked because of how often it was used to post illegal (in the US) content.
Yes, and this account is especially suspicious. Only one comment, "lived in UK", yet they make basic errors in how they use English, and "ugly"? Clearly they've never seen the English countryside.
Which part is disinformation? Personally I find it a bit hilarious, that's about it.
I've lived in UK, originally from Eastern Europe and now live in NZ and been working and unfortunately following US politics for a bit so kinda interesting to see observe from outside.
reply