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.

  • LoreSoong@startrek.websiteEnglish
    13·
    6 days ago

    True, but why does it matter here? The original letter to 4chan stated that they are violating the Photo ID based online safety laws, nothing about their intent to follow commerce laws.

    ALSO

    Directly from the ofcom website

    https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/protecting-children/ofcom-investigates-34-porn-sites-unr-new-age-check-rulesde

    Enforcement powers

    Where we identify compliance failures, we can require platforms to take specific steps to come into compliance. We can also impose fines of up to £18m or 10% of qualifying worldwide revenue, whichever is greater.

    Where appropriate, in the most serious cases, we can seek a court order for ‘business disruption measures’, such as requiring payment providers or advertisers to withdraw their services from a platform, or requiring Internet Service Providers to block access to a site in the UK.

    Edit: jsyk LEMMY falls under these guidelines it could easily be unjustly blocked by isps.

    • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.worldEnglish
      34·
      6 days ago

      You literally posted why it matters. 4chan does business with UK residents through Coinbase, a payment processor.

      If Coinbase is no longer able to process payments for 4chan, then 4chan will not get paid. Period.

      • LoreSoong@startrek.websiteEnglish
        11·
        6 days ago

        Once more for good measure.

        4chan intends to ignore these complaints. if they do, sure they can attack the payment processors. But there is no law that states “If 4chan accepts payments in the UK that they must comply.” as youve previously implied. Therefore if further action is taken (like blocking coinbase payments) Then 4chan will respond.

        Your initial comment was largely irrelevent to the actual laws that affect 4chans buisness or modderation practices which the letter is in response to… further more your advocation of said tactics to attack 4chan is concerning considering your CURRENT presence on a decentralized platform that accepts dontations through similar payment processors and can be blocked through ISPs.

        • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.worldEnglish
          12·
          6 days ago

          Im simply basing my original comment on the fact that multiple video game storefronts are having to remove certain NSFW video games based on payment processor demands. They had to comply or risk not being able to accept payments for their entire catalog of games.

          Im not calling for any action to be taken against any decentralized platform. 4chan is very much a centralized platform with a single instance that uses a single payment processor and has backed itself into a corner. Their current plight would be of no concern if they moved to a decentralized platform and did not hamstring themselves to a global processor named Coinbase.

          • LoreSoong@startrek.websiteEnglish
            2·
            6 days ago

            Again… how is this relevant? The payment processor debacle happened due to an austrailian activist group called collective shout they directly attacked payment processors by filing complaints to american payment processor companies. Nothing to do with following international commerce laws. I PROVED that there was no direct corrilation between accepting international payments and following local laws. The excerpt from the ofcom website admits that they have no direct power or laws backing their complaints, and will attack using the same underhanded tactics used by collective shout. not to mention the payment processors rolled back this decision in light of back lash.

            Okay Ill concede that 4chan is not decentralized. however my original point stands. The violations of consumer protection laws are the same on both platforms. The sites both prioritize, anonimity, freedom of speech, and self modderation.

            Believe it or not lemmy has similar issues to 4chan you just havent seen it. You can definitely find stances with some degenerate stuff and even some that are still federated.

            Youre constantly moving the goalpost to protect your ego. Youve failed at every turn to properly dispute me or any of the other logical users attempting to change your perspective. I believe you lack the facilities to have honest and productive conversations, similarly I lack the pateince to help lead you to the same conclusions we have intuited. I hope you improve, Ill attempt to do the same. Allthough I do not have high hopes for either of us.

              • LoreSoong@startrek.websiteEnglish
                2·
                6 days ago

                The lack of a decision is moot, To your initial claims, aswell as my criticism that this type of attack is underhanded and will be used to attack free speech.

                Also, maybe read the article next time.

                Unfortunately the work involved has led to some sites blocking UK based IP blocks, and while some say they are working to comply, others will probably just vanish permanently for UK users. This is what is behind the worries about free speech being blocked. The problem is that free speech can have consequences, for example someone using AI to generate fake images of someone and posting them claiming free speech, or others goading someone who has posted suicidal thoughts.

                Your fucking article Is making similar claims to me, how this can be dangerous and sets a bad precident even going as far to say “others will probably just vanish permanently for UK users”. Obviously free speech has issues but, mass censorship is not the solution.

                Again you are incapable of responding coherently to valid criticism of your claims. You cant do proper research, and above all else youre absurdly ignorant. BuT gO oFf, KiNg.

                • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  11·
                  6 days ago

                  Bro you literally posted that ofcom will cut off their payment processor. We are agreeing that it is an option.

                  Im not disagreeing with that at all. Thats what I think will happen too. We are on the same page.

                  • LoreSoong@startrek.websiteEnglish
                    2·
                    6 days ago

                    Cool, just continue to move the goalpost. Again you implied that there were laws that would allow ofcom to take direct legal action due to international commerce laws. I did not post that they WILL do anything, its just a tactic that can be deployed in the event 4chan does not comply. The reason i referenced that excerpt from ofcom was to show that they did not have ANY existing legal document that would validate your claim. Had they had ANY legal power over 4chan or other nsfw sites, it would have been referenced in the enforcement subsection.

                    At this point im genuinely only concerned about your intelectual dishonesty and tactics you have employed to assert yourself. I apologize for my abbrasiveness but Im trying to get through to you that your tactics are BAD and are making you out to look like a fool or intentionally dishonest.

                    All of this arguing would have been quelled had you just admitted that your initial reasoning was at fault HOWEVER your point stands about the fact that they will most likely attack payment processors. on top of that several users pointed out the dangers of this type of censorship because it appears as if you are advocating for it. On a website with the same issues as 4chan subject to the same UK laws.