mannycalavera comments on 4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue the UK Over its Age Verification Law

4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue the UK Over its Age Verification Law (www.404media.co)

submitted 1 year ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What matters is where the customer is at the time, not where they're from. If a British person goes to France and buys food from a French shop, they are for all intents and purposes a French customer at the time the sale takes place; French food standards laws would apply.

I think I agree with this.

By the same token, if you travel to France and then use the internet to access 4chan, you are a French internet user for the purposes of that interaction, and French laws would apply to you. If a French person came to the UK and accessed 4chan, British laws would apply to them at that time.

Fair. But the UK law isn't going after the user it's going after the provider. In another country. That's the distinction, right?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

Fair. But the UK law isn't going after the user it's going after the provider. In another country. That's the distinction, right?

To stick with the analogy, this would be like a French bakery taking export orders shipping to customers in the UK. They know they're shipping to UK customers, they know their products are crossing the border into another jurisdiction, and it's their responsibility to make sure the product meets UK standards.

If they don't make sure their product is legal for the UK market, the government would be justified in (and indeed expected to) block the import and prevent the sale.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

Slight disagree with the revised analogy.

Imagine you're running this French cum doughnut factory but you only serve local customers. One day a British tourist arrives - "oh I say how delightful!" - and buys, perfectly legally, a cum filled French doughnut. They then take it back to the UK for consumption. Again, the French bakery has broken no laws in France (inserting cum into doughnuts is perfectly legitimate in France). The British tourist broke no laws purchasing the doughnut. But only consumed it back home in Blighty where the government had said that children should be protected from doughnuts filled with cum but for adults it's OK.

It's more obvious in a physical goods scenario where you'd simply say the traveller needs to attest they have the right to the product at the border. Much like a limit on the amount of alcohol that you can bring back from abroad. But it's harder when we're not talking about physical goods, we're talking about information. There isn't an "export license" for information on the internet. Imagine if we had an internet where you couldn't read a newspaper online from Peru because the proprietor didn't purchase any export license. Madness.

The principle should be that countries enforce laws in their own jurisdictions. But the UK wants to additionally enforce it's laws on other jurisdictions. It doesn't want to admit this law is shit. And it doesn't want to block the information as it crosses the border - as in a Great British Firewall like China's. So it has made a pickle all for itself.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Patch@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

We're stretching this analogy to breaking point here, but...

Imagine you're running this French cum doughnut factory but you only serve local customers. One day a British tourist arrives - "oh I say how delightful!" - and buys, perfectly legally, a cum filled French doughnut. They then take it back to the UK for consumption.

The equivalent action to this would be to hop on a ferry to Calais, use a French internet connection to load up a page of 4chan on your browser, then hop back across the channel to read the page you've loaded back in Dover.

Which from an OSA point of view is actually fine. If a bit unlikely.

Imagine if we had an internet where you couldn't read a newspaper online from Peru because the proprietor didn't purchase any export license. Madness.

We don't have "export licences" for websites, but that's not because it's philosophically absurd; we have lots of other restrictions on ways things can be broadcast or disseminated into the country. Websites which break UK laws (such as hosting child pornography or selling illegal goods) are frequently blocked to all UK users. You can view the OSA as an unacceptable overreach, if that's your view- but it's not a fundamental departure from what we already do and have done for a long time.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] mannycalavera@feddit.uk 1 point 1 year ago

No more cum filled doughnuts. Understood.

but it's not a fundamental departure from what we already do and have done for a long time.

Then I don't understand why we don't continue to do this then? The UK doesn't like 4chan, ask them to kindly change their ways, upon refusal, block them. Same with Facebook.

Instead they're attempting to fine them where they have no jurisdiction to fine them. They don't want to start mass blocking sites because it makes them look like China. The law is dumb and ill thought out and unnecessary.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent