Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 260 posts

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#251

Post by foldr »

aydyn wrote: post #246
foldr wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t make any claim about people being good at their jobs. But I’m not sure why you think that this will have a negative impact on OFCOM’s goals. Imposing the fine is probably just a formal preliminary to having UK ISPs block 4chan.

In this case, Ofcom's stated goal (which I admit may be different than their actual goal) is to get overseas companies to comply with their rules. I think you may be giving them too much credit. You're essentially saying that their real goal is to get an ISP block and everything they are doing now is performative to get to that real, unstated goal. On the other hand I may be underestimating them as, to me, they just…

I don't think the fine is performative. It's just the first sanction that gets applied. I don't understand why you think that's incompatible with Ofcom's stated goal.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#253

Post by Zak »

airpoint wrote: post #250
EarlKing wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ofcom attempting to enforce it's laws upon a US-resident corporation that has no business presence in the United Kingdom is the very definition of affecting one's right to free speech in the United States. This is why the US has a rich history of case law to draw upon for defining personal jurisdiction. In this case, Ofcom is perhaps hoping to exploit uncertainty regarding personal jurisdiction to impose its law upon…

Mostly incorrect. The First Amendment limits the US government, not Ofcom or UK courts. UK law can regulate services with “links to the UK” even if the provider is abroad, and Ofcom’s enforcement does not itself abridge anyone’s US constitutional rights.

It's sovereignty that limits the UK courts from enforcing a fine against an organization without a physical, legal, or financial presence in the UK. They could ask US courts to enforce a UK judgment, but the First Amendment does bind US courts.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#254

Post by arghwhat »

anigbrowl wrote: post #118
arghwhat wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat of imprisonment if you don't pay the fine is the polar opposite of anything "symbolic". It puts individuals at significant personal risk should they ever make the mistake of traveling through the UK, in turn limiting their freedom of movement permanently even without being in prison.

This is just not that big a deal for people who don't have family or business connections there already. It'll be like 'oh no, banned from a once-great place.' Had the UK remained in the EU, they might have been able to get other countries to honor such an arrest warrant, but as it is they just look petulant.

Sorry, being in effect banned from a country (and possibly anyone it has an active extradition agreement with, which is unrelated to EU membership) is a big deal.

Imagine being a US citizen, and suddenly being banned from Texas and Utah. It's not like you were planning on visiting those, right? Just remember to never accidentally take interstate 10, 15, 20, 40, 70 or 80 when driving around, that can't be too hard.

Suggesting it is okay to have arbitrary freedoms taken away because "you wouldn't use it anyway" is a very slippery slope. Who needs privacy and free spech, not like you want to badmouth the eternal supreme leader anyway.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#255

Post by arghwhat »

kulahan wrote: post #141
arghwhat wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imprisonment is the polar opposite of symbolic action.

Correct, but irrelevant, since nobody has been imprisoned Edit: and nobody realistically could be

It is extremely relevant an entity granted powers by their sovereign governemnt is threatening that the next legally mandated escalation should they not comply with their unrealistic demands is imprisonment. And yes, ending up in jail is a realistic outcome when their laws dictate it, so if it goes that far you are now playing the floor is lava but instead of lava it's nations with UK extradition agreements.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#256

Post by arghwhat »

spookie wrote: post #100
arghwhat wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you likening the UK to Russia? This is not a fictive fine, it's threats of imprisonment, and ignoring the whole thing means having to avoid travelling to or through the UK for life, and that's assuming the UK doesn't try to activate any sort of extradition agreements. Even without going to prison, that's a permanent and quite significant theft of freedom of movement. If you ever travel abroad, you could end up ac…

I really fail to see the difference between this and Russia's fine.

Russia is a well known authoritarian state arbitrarily penalizing anyone not aligned with and assisting their ideals, with no expectation of any kind of fair process.

The UK is a misguided democracy within the usual group of countries considered "the west", enforcing stupid and broken laws in a highly questionable fashion that presents fundamental questions about jurisdiction in the modern world.

However, it is acting against an entity is cancerous enough that even the defendent is purely challenging (and getting support on) the technical legal grounds in a search for precedent.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#257

Post by EarlKing »

airpoint wrote: post #250
EarlKing wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ofcom attempting to enforce it's laws upon a US-resident corporation that has no business presence in the United Kingdom is the very definition of affecting one's right to free speech in the United States. This is why the US has a rich history of case law to draw upon for defining personal jurisdiction. In this case, Ofcom is perhaps hoping to exploit uncertainty regarding personal jurisdiction to impose its law upon…

Mostly incorrect. The First Amendment limits the US government, not Ofcom or UK courts. UK law can regulate services with “links to the UK” even if the provider is abroad, and Ofcom’s enforcement does not itself abridge anyone’s US constitutional rights.

The first amendment is a natural right, not a civil right, but at any rate the matter of personal jurisdiction is what is at issue, which most definitely does regulate who can and cannot assert authority over a man (fictive or otherwise). Ofcom's attempt to enforce their law over corporations and people who do not in fact have "links to the UK" as defined under US law is the entirety of the issue. They are overstepping their jurisdiction and infringing upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#258

Post by motbus3 »

alphazard wrote: post #74

What do they seek to accomplish here? There is strong precedent for the US defending the 1st amendment against foreign interests. No UK bureaucrats are going to make a career out of this. Going after a company that can defend itself and can't be intimidated, will prevent them from bluffing successfully against smaller companies, who could realistically be intimidated. If I were working at Ofcom, I would stay away fro…

They will basically block 4chan off UK network and that will be the beginning of the internet split, which, in a world endangered again by the narrative construction will be yet another step for one-sided truths and the verge of yet another war.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#259

Post by anigbrowl »

arghwhat wrote: post #254
anigbrowl wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just not that big a deal for people who don't have family or business connections there already. It'll be like 'oh no, banned from a once-great place.' Had the UK remained in the EU, they might have been able to get other countries to honor such an arrest warrant, but as it is they just look petulant.

Sorry, being in effect banned from a country (and possibly anyone it has an active extradition agreement with, which is unrelated to EU membership) is a big deal. Imagine being a US citizen, and suddenly being banned from Texas and Utah. It's not like you were planning on visiting those, right? Just remember to never accidentally take interstate 10, 15, 20, 40, 70 or 80 when driving around, that can't be too hard. Su…

I am not suggesting it's OK to have arbitrary freedoms taken away. I am suggesting that Hiroyuki Nishimura probably does not give a shit about the UK's temper tantrum.

Re: Ofcom fines 4chan £20K and counting for violating UK's Online Safety Act

#260

Post by arghwhat »

anigbrowl wrote: post #259
arghwhat wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, being in effect banned from a country (and possibly anyone it has an active extradition agreement with, which is unrelated to EU membership) is a big deal. Imagine being a US citizen, and suddenly being banned from Texas and Utah. It's not like you were planning on visiting those, right? Just remember to never accidentally take interstate 10, 15, 20, 40, 70 or 80 when driving around, that can't be too hard. Su…

I am not suggesting it's OK to have arbitrary freedoms taken away. I am suggesting that Hiroyuki Nishimura probably does not give a shit about the UK's temper tantrum.

You wrote that the theft of freedom was "symbolic" and "just not a big deal".

It also very much seems like Nishimura gives a shit by virtue of the active effort he is putting into his legal defense, consuming both time and money.

Post reply on HN