cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/35889767
Comments
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.
On one hand, 4chan (miraculously) has a point. They do not have a presence in the UK. They just serve traffic to it. Fining them for not following UK law makes no sense, and 4chan should tell them to pound sand.
On the other hand, if this were merely "we'll block you in our country unless you do X", then I do think notifying them ahead of time would be common courtesy. If the "violating" website sends them back a picture of tubgirl or something, then that's your answer.
This really comes down to national sovereignty. The UK can't force US businesses with no presence in the UK to play by the UK's rules, and the US can't stop the UK from blocking external businesses from serving the UK for not complying with their rules (as dumb as the rules are).
They serve users in the UK, therefore they can be fined. There is an established way to not get fined by governments of states whose markets you operate in: get out of that market. Block traffic from the UK. It is not the country's obligation to block, it is the company's. This has been already played out over the years in courts.
Websites have no way to know where a user is located. They can only use heuristics to predict a user's location. Such a law would be unenforceable anyway because 4chan can just tell the UK to blow themselves and there's nothing the UK can do in US territory except politely ask Trump to ship them to Europe.
Sounds like no? How are they going to make a company with no assets or staff in the UK pay the fine? American courts likely won't enforce it.
I mean, the state can fine them, they just can't execute that if the owner company of 4chan truly has no assets in the UK.
This is also hilariously relevant with export-controlled GPUs in China. GamersNexus put out a great video on it recently, but basically in China there's no laws preventing someone from buying or selling the GPUs (despite the US's attempts to block it), so entire above-ground businesses operate on selling these GPUs, even providing their own warranties and support.