Support NeoGAF

[cormack12]

"American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail. In the face of these unlawful foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights."

"The UK Online Safety Act is a brazen attempt by a foreign country to hobble American competitiveness and suffocate American freedom by exporting the UK's censorship laws to our shores."

"If foreign countries feel like bullying Americans, that is their prerogative. The First Amendment bar is prepared to hale any foreign censor into federal court at any time to defend any American."

 

[Hookshot]

As a person from the UK I want this to win but it'll probably be thrown out.

 

[The Cockatrice]

I need some law person to explain. 4chan is a free site. It doesnt offer payed services, it's not a business per say, so why would it ever adhere to UK laws or any laws whatsoever?

 

[calico]

Tim Berners-Lee rn

 

[Jinzo Prime]

Where does 4chan have the money for this?

 

[spons]

That's a laughable introduction to the case and it just might work.

 

[AJUMP23]

In a DC court they are likely to get a judge that wants censorship and thinks the UK has the right to enforce their draconian measures anywhere. Be careful what you sue for.

 

[DrFigs]

I love being American and Ofcom can't take that from me

 

[Cyberpunkd]

I need some law person to explain. 4chan is a free site. It doesnt offer payed services, it's not a business per se, so why would it ever adhere to UK laws or any laws whatsoever?

Because it allows people from the UK to access its site.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Because it allows people from the UK to access its site.

Then UK should block the site from their region like some other garbage countries do with certain sites. 4chan doesnt have to do or change anything as they are not UK based. The fact that they're even suing seems ridiculous,. which is why I dont get.

 

[Plies]

 

[lifa-cobex]

Where does 4chan have the money for this?

Never ask a group of autists how they autist.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Then UK should block the site from their region like some other garbage countries do with certain sites. 4chan doesnt have to do or change anything as they are not UK based. The fact that they're even suing seems ridiculous,. which is why I dont get.

Internet is not your "lol, we can do whatever" card.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Internet is not your "lol, we can do whatever" card.

True and false at the same time. By that logic, neogaf should also get sued by UK considering some of the stuff users wrote in here. In fact all sites should just bend the knee to the UK law since they are available there, right? You know how ridiculous that sounds. UK is free to block any site it does not feel ok with it, but it has no power to force that site to change based on their laws.

 

[nush]

True and false at the same time. By that logic, neogaf should also get sued by UK considering some of the stuff users wrote in here. In fact all sites should just bend the knee to the UK law since they are available there, right? You know how ridiculous that sounds. UK is free to block any site it does not feel ok with it, but it has no power to force that site to change based on their laws.

Even China didn't block GAF.

 

[Jinzo Prime]

Because it allows people from the UK to access its site.

Then UK should block the site from their region like some other garbage countries do with certain sites. 4chan doesnt have to do or change anything as they are not UK based. The fact that they're even suing seems ridiculous,. which is why I dont get.

My question is this: How does a website that is freely available on the internet block itself from the UK? How can they avoid "doing business" in the UK when the web is accessible by anyone in the world? Shouldn't the burden be on the UK government to block websites that don't adhere to their laws?

That is why they are suing, because the answer to those questions has ramifications beyond this one incident.

 

[The Cockatrice]

My question is this: How does a website that is freely available on the internet block itself from the UK? How can they avoid "doing business" in the UK when the web is accessible by anyone in the world? Shouldn't the burden be on the UK government to block websites that don't adhere to their laws?

That is why they are suing, because the answer to those questions has ramifications beyond this one incident.

The government can impose on ISP's and all telecom providers to block the site from their end. This feels more like a flex thing than anything else, unless I'm missing something.

 

[Wheeljack539]

Even China didn't block GAF.

 

[TransTrender]

What's the difference between this lawsuit and 4chan ignoring emails and not paying any fines?
Is there some other threat I do not understand?

 

[Tams]

I had to undergo some training today that included the OSA, through gritted teeth.

Ofcom this, Ofcom that. They didn't explicitly mention 4chan though.

 

[Rush2112]

 

[Fbh]

Can't they just block connections coming from the UK? Or redirected them to some landing page with info about VPNs, TOR or other ways to access the site?
Or can't the UK ask ISPs to block 4chan if they are so opposed to it?

 

[Jinzo Prime]

Or can't the UK ask ISPs to block 4chan if they are so opposed to it?

That's the issue, Ofcom would rather charge fees instead of blocking 4chan. This is part of the reason for the lawsuit.

 

[poppabk]

Are they deliberately being oxymoronic for lols?

 

[Fbh]

That's the issue, Ofcom would rather charge fees instead of blocking 4chan. This is part of te reason for the lawsuit.

But if 4Chan isn't hosted or headquartered in the UK, what would be consequences of just ignoring the fees?

 

[Jinzo Prime]

But if 4Chan isn't hosted or headquartered in the UK, what would be consequences of just ignoring the fees?

It could lead to Ofcom filing suit in the UK, which would be less favorable 4chan than a US-based lawsuit. This is preemptive to establish some case law against this kind of censorship.

 

[Fbh]

It could lead to Ofcom filing suit in the UK, which would be less favorable 4chan than a US-based lawsuit. This is preemptive to establish some case law against this kind of censorship.

That's where I'm just completely ignorant in international law.
If the company and owners aren't located in the UK can't they just ignore a suit filed in the UK? Is it because the owners could potentially be extradited into the UK?.

It's as if instead of just blocking it, China or Russia sued the BBC in a Chinese/Russian court, would that have any actual implication for them?

 

[Tams]

That's where I'm just completely ignorant in international law.
If the company and owners aren't located in the UK can't they just ignore a suit filed in the UK? Is it because the owners could potentially be extradited into the UK?.

It's as if instead of just blocking it, China or Russia sued the BBC in a Chinese/Russian court, would that have any actual implication for them?

Ultimately, no. The UK can't do anything unless the owners come to the UK or a country that for whatever reason is prepared to arrest and extradite them to the UK.

Now, they could escalate it to Interpol, but countries are only more cooperative there because that's supposed to be for serious crime. Many countries would not appreciate the UK wasting their time, so the UK likely wouldn't bother.