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.)
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
If I access 4chan only through tor, will I be safe from these tirants?
