7 ms·

4chan's response (through lawyers): https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1956391746029428914 https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1956391746029428914 Full text: "

by rahidz 1y ago

4chan's response (through lawyers): https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1956391746029428914 https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1956391746029428914 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."

Barbing 1y ago
Thanks - so instead they’ll be sued by someone under those new US state laws that cover sites featuring some % of adult content? (There was a worrisome blog post someone shared here on HN a few weeks ago.)
- arcfour 1y ago
  No.
linkage 1y ago
[flagged]
ivan_gammel 1y ago
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.
- narrator 1y ago
  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.
  - ivan_gammel 1y ago
    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.
    - achierius 1y ago
      But it's not, and so the treaties to which the US is party for those cases would not apply. What sanction methods are you thinking of that could get to US citizens on US soil without US governmental consent?
      - ivan_gammel 1y ago
        1. Preventing those citizens from doing illegal activities on UK soil 2. Using broader spectrum of law enforcement options if those citizens arrive in the UK
        ffsm8 1y ago
        Blows my mind someone actually unironically makes this argument. 4chan is showing ads on their site, but if your idea had any grounds, the issue would be with the ad network, not 4chan. While that'd be a pretty bad legal precedent too, it'd at least be coherent. More realistically, 4chan will likely be banned by UK ISPs after a court ruling. The previous mail was likely just to move the process forward to show they have no interest in following the UK law.
bloak 1y ago
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"?
- frumplestlatz 1y ago
  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.
- bentley 1y ago
  > 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.
  - justlikereddit 1y ago
    You get a speeding ticket from Pakistan and you'll really go to the court in Islamabad to explain your case?
    - fatata123 1y ago
      [dead]
    - bentley 1y ago
      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.)

by rahidz 1y ago

Barbing 1y ago

Thanks - so instead they’ll be sued by someone under those new US state laws that cover sites featuring some % of adult content? (There was a worrisome blog post someone shared here on HN a few weeks ago.)

arcfour 1y ago
No.

linkage 1y ago

[flagged]

ivan_gammel 1y ago

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.

narrator 1y ago
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.
- ivan_gammel 1y ago
  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.
  - achierius 1y ago
    But it's not, and so the treaties to which the US is party for those cases would not apply. What sanction methods are you thinking of that could get to US citizens on US soil without US governmental consent?
    - ivan_gammel 1y ago
      1. Preventing those citizens from doing illegal activities on UK soil 2. Using broader spectrum of law enforcement options if those citizens arrive in the UK
      - ffsm8 1y ago
        Blows my mind someone actually unironically makes this argument. 4chan is showing ads on their site, but if your idea had any grounds, the issue would be with the ad network, not 4chan. While that'd be a pretty bad legal precedent too, it'd at least be coherent. More realistically, 4chan will likely be banned by UK ISPs after a court ruling. The previous mail was likely just to move the process forward to show they have no interest in following the UK law.

bloak 1y ago

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"?

frumplestlatz 1y ago
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.
bentley 1y ago
> 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.
- justlikereddit 1y ago
  You get a speeding ticket from Pakistan and you'll really go to the court in Islamabad to explain your case?
  - fatata123 1y ago
    [dead]
  - bentley 1y ago
    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.)