231–240 of 817 posts
More odious nannying by silly civil servants. If Britain is to restore cultural leadership it needs to move policy away from this horrible trend of policing what people say and think, and focus its energy on better policing what people do.
I don't mean this to be as insulting as it may, but the UK government trying to police US businesses has always felt like a toddler trying to ground his mom.
Am I missing something here? 4chan is available in the UK so has to follow UK laws there, where is the problem? Regardless of whatever it is they are enforcing.
I think if the UK wants to operate on such an assumption, they should move to national firewall with a whitelist model rather than a blacklist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's also all the countries that have laws regarding sex-tourism abroad as well.
That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere. America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home. America…
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.
> The infinite character of that power was most famously summed up by English lawyer Sir Ivor Jennings, who once said that “if Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence”. This line is taught to every first-year English law student.
Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. But really the crucial thing is:
> We explained to the UK that the Online Safety Act had a snowball’s chance in hell of being enforced in the United States
Ofcom has to go through the motions of telling 4chan they can't smoke in Paris because of the (very on-brand) nanny law.
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.
They're not going to Paris, are they? 4chan brings their services into the UK. The US does the same thing: Kim Dotcom comes to mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's different in that it prosecutes citizens of those countries for things done outside their borders, not unrelated people doing things elsewhere. America will prosecute Americans for doing certain things that are illegal inside America outside its borders. As another example, if you take a boat to international waters and kill someone on it, you're going to get arrested and prosecuted when you get home. America…
Ok, hypothetically though, and going back to the smoking in Paris law, if the UK banned smoking in Paris, and a French citizen proven to have smoked in Paris vacations in the UK, the only thing stopping the UK from prosecuting them is that it would be kinda "act-of-war-ish" to start imprisoning French citizens. Technically they could under their own law, they just wouldn't dare since they don't want to start a major…
In this case, the operator of 4Chan is free to blow off the UK's law. They may wish to account for that in future travel plans, though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial effect It also continues like this: > This does not mean that the Act extends to all use of in-scope services globally. […] “The duties extend only to the design, operation and use of the service in the UK and, for duties expressed to apply in relation to ‘users’, as it affects the UK users of the service” Wouldn't this mean that the Act only applies…
That's not what the text means, but even if it did, you cornered yourself, since if you have no particular care for UK users, you won't care if they are blocked from your general service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put anyone in charge of any space and they'll want to control what people say and think there. Hell look at HN and literally anywhere. Everybody has their own "ideal" world. I for instance don't want anybody talking shit about anime or video games ever.
If speech in the U.K. was moderated like HN, the situation would be greatly improved.
Is there a solution where we can compel parental control to be enabled by default on kids phones? That would seem to be least intrusive option. Using the internet in the UK/EU is such a horrible experience, every cookie pop-up is a reminder how badly thought out these rules are.