4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence • Hacker News Board

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#151

Post by morkalork » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 4:55 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #137

morkalork wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States (eg. illegal gambling, hacking), South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) and many other countries operate the same way.

> South Korea (smoking cannabis abroad) And gambling, too. Remember in 2013 when all those celebrities got busted for gambling in Macao? > After getting caught gambling illegally, Shinhwa’s Andy, Boom and Yang Se Hyung received their punishments. > On November 28, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Andy, Boom, and Yang Se Hyung to monetary penalties. Andy and Boom must pay 5,000,000 won, while Yang Se Hyung w…

There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#152

Post by awesome_dude » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 4:57 PM UTC

ibejoeb wrote: post #139

beardyw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.

Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.

There was an Australian case, I'll look it up, but the relevant bit, the publishing of the web page happened on a computer in Australia, which they claimed (successfully) gave them jurisdiction

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#153

Post by lenerdenator » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 4:57 PM UTC

iamnothere wrote: post #99

littlestymaar wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which doesn't sounds so absurd if you replace “tobacco” with “cocaine” and “Parisian” with “Colombian”.

It still sounds absurd to me. Nations should not be in the business of passing laws that apply to extraterritorial actions of foreign citizens. I know that it happens, especially with the US, but IMHO it’s just not how things should work. This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines. Just wait until 30 years from now when you…

> This has become far too normalized due to decades of bad behavior by the US, and it’s going to come back to bite us as US power declines.

This has been happening long before the US started doing it.

If anything, it's normalized in the US because of the bad behavior prior to the US doing it. China's a great example. What does brutally crushing dissent internally and abroad without even a facade of a single care about human rights get you? Well, in their case, damn near superpower status. Been that way since at the very least Nixon's administration.

The net effect was people started to wonder why we bother with the inefficiencies of "rights" and "privacy". The concern for human rights shown since the end of WWII in the West (particularly the US) is an exception, not norm, in history.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#154

Post by fecal_henge » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 4:57 PM UTC

ibejoeb wrote: post #139

beardyw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes if the Parisian tabaconist sells in the UK. What happens in France is a French concern.

Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.

I'm nearly at the point of saying that a tobacco sales isn't the best analogy here.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#155

Post by ekjhgkejhgk » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 4:57 PM UTC

I hate the Ofcom and the clowns that pass for British government.

But I can see how this argument would make sense in the retarded mind of a lawyer. The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Instead, the first amendment constrains the power of the US government to infringe upon those rights. It doesn't constrain the power of any other government.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#156

Post by thinkingtoilet » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 4:58 PM UTC

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #155

I hate the Ofcom and the clowns that pass for British government. But I can see how this argument would make sense in the retarded mind of a lawyer. The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Instead, the first amendment constrains the power of the US government to infringe upon those rights. It doesn't constrain the power of any other government.

>The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights.

Says who? Prove it. Go to Russia and say something bad about the government and see how well this right you think you magically get holds up.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#157

Post by ivan_gammel » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 5:00 PM UTC

tasuki wrote: post #35

> The Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this expressly includes conducting investigations into, and imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of online services with their duties under the Act. […] The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect I don't see anything wrong here: Sure, Ofcom can have th…

Look at this page: https://www.4chan.org/advertise

It explicitly says that 7% of their users are coming from UK. If UK blocks them, they will loose noticeable part of advertising revenue. If there was no money at stake, they could just ignore Ofcom and sleep well. But they appear to be very agitated about the fact that they may loose their second biggest market.

Honestly, I don’t understand anyone on 4chan side here: they are de facto in UK jurisdiction because they earn money from that user base, so either they comply or they leave. All of this freedom-of-speech and US lawsuit hype is just a distraction circus.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#158

Post by icepat » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 5:00 PM UTC

thinkingtoilet wrote: post #156

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #155

I hate the Ofcom and the clowns that pass for British government. But I can see how this argument would make sense in the retarded mind of a lawyer. The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Instead, the first amendment constrains the power of the US government to infringe upon those rights. It doesn't constrain the power of any other government.

>The first amendment doesn't give people rights: people already have those rights. Says who? Prove it. Go to Russia and say something bad about the government and see how well this right you think you magically get holds up.

Regardless of if you agree with the US Constitution's perspective on self-evident rights, your point here does not negate what they said, simply indicates that the Russian government is not constrained in the same way the US government is.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#159

Post by krapp » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 5:00 PM UTC

tokai wrote: post #149

4ggr0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4chan isn't all /b/ and /pol/ maybe this is my bias, could very well be. maybe i should give it a 10th chance and browse the more useful boards. i guess /g/ would be a start, do you have other recommendations? i mean i'm open to change my mind. for me 4chan stands for alt-right pipelines, spreading far-right ideology online etc., so i just really have a sour taste in my mouth when thinking about it.

/pol/ was a containment board for Stormfront users. The site is super pluralistic. But don't force yourself to go to a place you don't want to go.

There's no such thing as a "containment board." Nothing actually gets contained.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#160

Post by ibejoeb » Fri, Oct 17, 2025, 5:01 PM UTC

awesome_dude wrote: post #152

ibejoeb wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. It's like if a brit goes to paris to buy cigarettes, the UK is stating that it's the tabac's job to refuse the transaction. They can say whatever they want, but the UK can't conduct an extra-territorial police action in france. They can bar subject from traveling to france instead. The onus is on the UK.

There was an Australian case, I'll look it up, but the relevant bit, the publishing of the web page happened on a computer in Australia, which they claimed (successfully) gave them jurisdiction

But what does successfully mean? An Australian court can rule on it, but Australia is going to have to take it up with US State from there. Or send the navy, I guess...