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

4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

alecmuffett.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 817 posts

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#421

Post by Yeul »

Razengan wrote: post #284
martin-t wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The evolution of governance of online communities mirrors that of the real-world. First, everyone did what they wanted. As conflict became more common, power hierarchies started to emerge. we're now at a stage where every place needs to be governed, yet its members have no influence over who does it. I have online communities will transition into something resembling democracy where moderators are elected from member…

> moderators in pretty much all online spaces are effectively dictators This. How do 1-10 or 20 or even 100 people get the "right" to decide what millions of people talk about and see? What's keeping them from burying/boosting opinions about shit they have strong personal feelings about? Steve Huffman/Spez of Reddit literally edited users' comments, and they autoban anyone saying "Fuck Spez"

If HN had existed in 1800 abolitionists would have been banned.

Society does not progress by people being nice and hugging eachother.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#422

Post by hunterpayne »

jenscow wrote: post #340
Flere-Imsaho wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this what Defamation laws protect against? "Free speech" doesn't mean it can't be challenged. /not a lawyer

But if "free speech is absolute" then it can't be overridden by any other law.

Any absolutist position on any topic is almost certainly wrong. This includes absolutist free speech. The bar in the US is if the speech has some benefit to wider society to allow. And we are very lenient on what we call benefit in these cases. Anyone that tells you the US has absolutely free speech is either lying or just wrong. And in the real world, you can't run society with any absolutist policies including absolutist free speech policies.

That being said, the UK government can pound sand and should be embarrassed by its behavior. UK isn't a serious country anymore. If you want to know why Americans don't really care what others think, this is a really good example as to why. Total clown show...

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#423

Post by hunterpayne »

kstrauser wrote: post #237
xp84 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Once you're in another country's jurisdiction, all bets are off. You're subject to those laws, unless there's a treaty or similar saying that you're not. In another post, I mentioned writing nasty blog posts about Kim Jong-un. If you do that, it's probably a very bad idea to visit North Korea. 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 plan…

This is one of those technically true but defacto false things. Its legal under UK law, but if they want the variety of benefits they get from the US then it isn't. If the UK government starts arresting vacationing Americans for things that aren't a violation of US law, its all a matter of if the US governments wants to make an issue of it. Maybe you get lucky and nothing happens, or maybe you lose your military protection and 25% of your GDP. Plus your tourism businesses take a hit. You really want to take that risk?

But given the behavior of the UK government lately, doing something suicidally stupid seems on brand for them.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#424

Post by hunterpayne »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #326
kstrauser wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you're in another country's jurisdiction, all bets are off. You're subject to those laws, unless there's a treaty or similar saying that you're not. In another post, I mentioned writing nasty blog posts about Kim Jong-un. If you do that, it's probably a very bad idea to visit North Korea. 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 plan…

This is why we are not travailing the US right now.

Because you think ICE will arrest you for being an illegal immigrant? If you seriously believe this, then probably its best you don't go outside anymore.

Every time the media reported something like this, turned out they were leaving out something important. Like the professor who was smuggling biological samples into the US. Turns out that's illegal, that's why she went home. If you aren't doing something like that, you will be fine.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#425

Post by sampli »

flumpcakes wrote: post #416
knorker wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable? If I transmit insults of dear leader Kim Jung Un on amateur radio, then those radio waves will reach DPRK. I likely would be breaking DPRK law. Why wouldn't they have the power? Same reason my decree that guns are now banned in the US is not even refuted, but ignored. 4chan has no obligation or even reason to even respond to the UK except as entertainm…

I think you are confusing breaking a law, and enforceability. I agree with the gist of your argument though, the UK cannot _force_ a US only company, but it doesn't change the fact it is breaking UK law. > I likely would be breaking DPRK law. Why wouldn't they have the power? They do as a sovereign nation. But what most people seem to be missing is that you're not going to DPRK and the US Government doesn't care so y…

nitpicking like this is asinine

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#426

Post by senorrib »

flumpcakes wrote: post #416
knorker wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why wouldn't it have the power to hold that entity accountable? If I transmit insults of dear leader Kim Jung Un on amateur radio, then those radio waves will reach DPRK. I likely would be breaking DPRK law. Why wouldn't they have the power? Same reason my decree that guns are now banned in the US is not even refuted, but ignored. 4chan has no obligation or even reason to even respond to the UK except as entertainm…

I think you are confusing breaking a law, and enforceability. I agree with the gist of your argument though, the UK cannot _force_ a US only company, but it doesn't change the fact it is breaking UK law. > I likely would be breaking DPRK law. Why wouldn't they have the power? They do as a sovereign nation. But what most people seem to be missing is that you're not going to DPRK and the US Government doesn't care so y…

They can’t possibly be breaking UK law because the service isn’t even being provided in the UK. UK users are accessing US servers to get service.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#427

Post by hunterpayne »

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #315
lesuorac wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which law allows the death penalty for allegedly transporting drugs? Shooting first and asking questions later is how we got into this mess of deporting us citizens.

Sections 105 and 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea allows any country to go after drug smugglers in international waters but it does require that a court in that country approve of the action. It's certainly worth questioning if a court can issue a preemptive ruling on a proposed action against alleged drug smugglers. There's also the issue that Maritime Law is weird, convoluted, and probably…

Since you are going all lawyer on this one, you should know they weren't flying any national flag. Technically, if you do this in international waters you are a pirate and anyone can legally do what the US did in that situation. Maritime law is very old and has some interesting provisions in it. The parts you quote only matter if a national flag is being flown at the time.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#428

Post by array_key_first »

ceejayoz wrote: post #345
array_key_first wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it is society's problem, and within society's capacity to attempt to manage. Sure, to an extent, but not really: we give parents a lot of freedom here. > Sure, but reality also often means smart, caring parents still can't stop kids from... being kids. I've lived in places where half a dozen public wifi hotspots were available; even if I didn't, chances are I'd have to let my kids on wifi for homework, on compu…

> Try searching up porn on, say, hotel wifi, it won't work. I… very much doubt that.

What? Why are you doubting that?

I can't even search for porn on cellular networks and I'm in the US.

Hotels, Starbucks, my job, the library - they all block porn. The idea that kids just have free access to a wild internet is legitimately made up. Schools block that stuff too - universities, even.

As I've said, this solution is not solving this problem because this problem legitimately does not exist. It's solving a different problem. What that problem is, is for you to find out.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#429

Post by flumpcakes »

senorrib wrote: post #426
flumpcakes wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing breaking a law, and enforceability. I agree with the gist of your argument though, the UK cannot _force_ a US only company, but it doesn't change the fact it is breaking UK law. > I likely would be breaking DPRK law. Why wouldn't they have the power? They do as a sovereign nation. But what most people seem to be missing is that you're not going to DPRK and the US Government doesn't care so y…

They can’t possibly be breaking UK law because the service isn’t even being provided in the UK. UK users are accessing US servers to get service.

> UK users are accessing US servers to get service.

That's called offering the service to UK users. I don't host my blog in 165 times in each country in order to let people to access my content/services.

Re: 4Chan Lawyer publishes Ofcom correspondence

#430

Post by coolKid721 »

paxiongmap wrote: post #54

"The least bad thing that Ofcom and the Government could do is to quietly let the matter drop whilst focusing on education." This generalises very well for all Government. Shame we're a couple of generations into education being about producing pliant workers over independent, thinking human beings.

Mass education was formed to destroy local cultures and languages in the prussian empire and revolutionary french to make sure people were compliant and wouldn't revolt against the state's control, it has never had anything to do with making people thinkers. This is the stated purpose, and always has been.
Post reply on HN