Law 4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue the UK Over its Age Verification Law - The notorious troll sites filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court as part of a fight over the UK's Online Safety Act.

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://www.404media.co/4chan-and-kiwi-farms-sue-the-uk-over-its-age-verification-law/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26076733-govuscourtsdcd28421810-1/

This article was produced in collaboration with Court Watch, an independent outlet that unearths overlooked court records. Subscribe to them here.

4chan and Kiwi Farms sued the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) over its age verification law in U.S. federal court Wednesday, fulfilling a promise it announced on August 23. In the lawsuit, 4chan and Kiwi Farms claim that threats and fines they have received from Ofcom “constitute foreign judgments that would restrict speech under U.S. law.”

Both entities say in the lawsuit that they are wholly based in the U.S. and that they do not have any operations in the United Kingdom and are therefore not subject to local laws. Ofcom’s attempts to fine and block 4chan and Kiwi Farms, and the lawsuit against Ofcom, highlight the messiness involved with trying to restrict access to specific websites or to force companies to comply with age verification laws.

The lawsuit calls Ofcom an “industry-funded global censorship bureau.”

“Ofcom’s ambitions are to regulate Internet communications for the entire world, regardless of where these websites are based or whether they have any connection to the UK,” the lawsuit states. “On its website, Ofcom states that ‘over 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of the Online Safety Act—from the largest social media platforms to the smallest community forum.’”

Both 4chan and Kiwi Farms are notorious online communities that are infamous for their largely anything-goes attitude. Users of both forums have been tied to various doxing and harassment campaigns over the years. Still, they have now become the entities fighting the hardest against the UK’s disastrous Online Safety Act, which requires websites and social media platforms to perform invasive age verification checks on their users, which often requires people to upload an ID or otherwise give away their personal information in order to access large portions of the internet. Sites that do not comply are subject to huge fines, regardless of where they are based. The law has resulted in an internet where users need to provide scans of their faces in order to access, for example, certain music videos on Spotify.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said the Online Safety Act “is a threat to the privacy of users, restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposes users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form of ID excluded from accessing the internet.”

Ofcom began investigating 4chan over alleged violations of the Online Safety Act in June. On August 13, it announced a provisional decision and stated that 4chan had “contravened its duties” and then began to charge the site a penalty of £20,000 (roughly $26,000) a day. Kiwi Farms has also been threatened with fines, the lawsuit states.

"American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail. In the face of these foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights," Preston Byrne, one of the lawyers representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms, told 404 Media.

"We are aware of the lawsuit," an Ofcom spokesperson told 404 Media. "Under the Online Safety Act, any service that has links with the UK now has duties to protect UK users, no matter where in the world it is based. The Act does not, however, require them to protect users based anywhere else in the world.”

Update: This story has been updated with a comment from Ofcom.
 
I still haven't found a good explanation as to why something in the UK (government or NGO, I'm not quite sure) is fining companies outside of the UK, in pounds. How does it have jurisdiction? How can it enforce?
From a legal standpoint, they cannot.
They have no standing here, and decades worth of precedent gives testament to that.

For those who missed me discussing it earlier: Repeatedly, the UK tried to enforce fines (specifically, for Libel) in American jurisdiction, and while it was both annoying and frustrating, it didn't escalate to the level of legally actionable problem until the early 2000s, where Saudi Nationals realized that what qualifies as Libel in the UK and Wales is vastly lower than what does in other western nations - so what they'd do is file their Libel suit in the UK (despite being foreign nationals), and when the other party inevitably didn't show up (because it was filed in another fucking country), they'd win a summary judgment and in this fashion, and censor their critics with legal muscle, creating the odious practice now known as Libel Tourism.

In 2003, one particular schmuck, Khalid bin Mafouz, a Saudi Banker that directly gave money to Al-Qaeda, yet objected to being portrayed as financing terrorism, elected to use this method against an American writer who had no involvement at any point with the UK or Wales. This writer, Rachel Ehrenfeld, had just written a book about how Arabic terrorist groups launder money, and Mafouz was front and center as part of it, and he immediately sued. A hilariously corrupt and infamously foreign-friendly UK Judge wound up giving Mafouz a summary judgment when the American he was charging with Libel failed to show up in a British court. The court fined Ehrenfeld $230,000 dollars, demanded a public apology to Mafouz, and demanded all copies of her book be destroyed.

At this point, the State of New York, which was having none of this, rammed through the Libel Tourism Protection Act, which went through the state's legislature with unanimous, overwhelming support - the new law functionally made it so that in the state of New York, state Judges hold authority over any case of Libel against a New York-based publisher or writer brought by a foreign court, functionally stopping stopping the practice of Libel Tourism within our borders. Not too long after this, then-Governor Schwarzenegger put through his own version of this same legislation in 2009 for California, which also passed with unanimous approval. Finally, in 2010, Obama passed the SPEECH Act, which functionally federalizes the Libel Tourism Protection Act and makes it stronger still, automatically making any Libel judgments against American citizens brought by foreign courts utterly unenforceable unless they meet the benchmarks for the American standard on Libel.

There are other cases too, but this one is the one that establishes the benchmarks and will be referenced in regards to this case going forward, even though it's centered entirely on Libel. Much of what sites like the Farms and 4chan do is completely legal and covered under American law, even though simply the truth, using the UK's definition, can be Libelous. The Argument by OFCOM is almost certainly going to be that mere access to the Farms and 4chan causes problems, and will argue that what we discuss constitutes Libel in their territory, but that ship sailed a decade and a half ago.

Why is 4chan/lolcow even dignifying it with a counter suit? How does DC have reach back?
Because they'd prefer to use us to fight a proxy battle they don't have to. They don't need to worry about the optics involved, they don't need to worry about how OFCOM will be lining them up for rabble-rousing against them, all they need to do is back the biggest autists in the room as they prepare for TOTAL RETARD WAR.

There are a lot of American companies watching and waiting eagerly, hoping we win this, because if we do, they don't have to do anything other than keep on keeping on. There's also a hell of a lot of people hoping we'll lose, as well as an army of absolute morons who would mindlessly assault any site that dared to support our cause, calling for everything from debanking to hosting cancellation, and these sites are not as skilled at this kind of fight as our siteowner is. They have something to lose.
 
1756594217042.webp


The bongs have been officially gated outta Steam's gooner games. It has never been more over.
 
Why is 4chan/lolcow even dignifying it with a counter suit? How does DC have reach back?
Because it's better to be the first one to the courthouse door. The defendant starts out on their back foot.

And because FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!

These motherfuckers are attacking our freedom and they're getting attacked back.
Finally, in 2010, Obama passed the SPEECH Act, which functionally federalizes the Libel Tourism Protection Act and makes it stronger still, automatically making any Libel judgments against American citizens brought by foreign courts utterly unenforceable unless they meet the benchmarks for the American standard on Libel.
This was a rare moment of absolutely bipartisan outrage and patriotism by literally everyone involved and all Americans should be proud of it.
 
There are a lot of American companies watching and waiting eagerly, hoping we win this, because if we do, they don't have to do anything other than keep on keeping on. There's also a hell of a lot of people hoping we'll lose, as well as an army of absolute morons who would mindlessly assault any site that dared to support our cause, calling for everything from debanking to hosting cancellation, and these sites are not as skilled at this kind of fight as our siteowner is. They have something to lose.
This needs to be hammered on. We do have supporters. They will say nothing. But they are watching. They are likely the ones that tipped off our current legal representation that something needed to be done.

As for the people against us? The usual suspects of course, but also nations that really, really would like to censor the Internet and fuck with Americans at the same time. We are in something bigger than just two websites and a stupid agency.
 
Because it's better to be the first one to the courthouse door. The defendant starts out on their back foot.

And because FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDOM!

These motherfuckers are attacking our freedom and they're getting attacked back.

This was a rare moment of absolutely bipartisan outrage and patriotism by literally everyone involved and all Americans should be proud of it.
It's a beautiful thing the backlash this legislation has gotten. A bunch of freedom fighters pimp slapping Ofcom for our freedom.
 
Well yes, not disagreeing.

I’m still wondering how ofcom can collect anything but goatse spam.
They can't.

They have no means to enforce/collect any fines on US soil.

What the suit is requesting is not to waive this unenforceable fine, but, to put on public record that it is an unenforceable fine and to enjoin Ofcom from even contacting the parties to remind them they still haven't paid their fine.

They basically want a rubber stamp from the US Judiciary on that unenforceable fine that says "UNENFORCIBLE AND STOP CALLING US" as a means to humiliate a bunch of censorious technocrats who've gotten much larger than their britches in thinking they control the internet anywhere except inside their own borders.

Even if they lose?

Whatever the ruling?

The fine will still be unenforceable and uncollectable.
 
Even at the verge of infrastructural collapse and staring down overwhelming forces, I find myself still fighting. why?.. because it’s really fucking funny. :story:
 
I’m still wondering how ofcom can collect anything but goatse spam.
They can collect nothing but my sperm and my eternal loathing and resistance.
What the suit is requesting is not to waive this unenforceable fine, but, to put on public record that it is an unenforceable fine and to enjoin Ofcom from even contacting the parties to remind them they still haven't paid their fine.
This is exactly what it is. It is seeking, from a United States court, in the United States, the country we kicked these effete, etiolated FAGGOTS out of, a declaration that these cocksuckers have NO POWER HERE.

We are either the United States or we are not, we are not a colony of this faggot shrunken ex-empire shithole worthless joke of a country called the United Cuckdom. We fought a war, we won it, they do NOT RUN SHIT.
 
It's a beautiful thing the backlash this legislation has gotten. A bunch of freedom fighters pimp slapping Ofcom for our freedom.
What's funny is they walked face first into this potential situation. Its not like they weren't given fair warning this would happen either. The absolute arrogance of an unelected beaurocrat high on their power is amazing to see.
 
The UK already embarrassed itself the first time they tried to janny us and they're still trying to do it again? The sun sets on your empire now and the Queen is fucking dead, it's like a geriatric trying to show he's still got it by pathetically hobbling about pretending he can still dance.

I know the farms tends to be a bit of a PR stain, but I believe it when Null said they were enthusiastic about the case. Not only is it a great look to do free work to literally defend the sanctity of the constitution against the UK of all places, but with the way things are heading politically I bet they'll more than make back in lost wages by being known as the guys who can win a court case against online overreach.

There has been so much shit going on with this and it's only going to get worse. If they do good work, it'd be a massive boon for a lot of organizations and individuals for there to be lawyers with experience in this field who have shown that they won't hesitate to put their best foot forward for "controversial" clients.
 
We fought a war, we won it, they do NOT RUN SHIT.
Now wouldn't be a good time for a rematch, either, they've got more Admirals drawing pension than floating warships.

There has been so much shit going on with this and it's only going to get worse. If they do good work, it'd be a massive boon for a lot of organizations and individuals for there to be lawyers with experience in this field who have shown that they won't hesitate to put their best foot forward for "controversial" clients.
It would also be an unmissable sign for anyone in the US contemplating UK-style web-control that even the "shitpost" sites will fight you, and not knuckle under at the threat of governments, fines or government fines.
 
Finally, someone fighting against this Police State called the United Killdum. God Save Starmer because his ass belongs to the British people.
 
Back
Top Bottom