By John Q. Hosedrinker 
4chan’s legal representation has declared the online message board will not comply with fines imposed by the UK’s media regulator, Ofcom, under the Online Safety Act. The lawyer, Preston Byrne, stated that Ofcom’s notices hold no legal weight in the United States and viewed the investigation as harassment against US tech firms. 4chan, a US-incorporated company, asserts its protection under the First Amendment and will not pay the proposed £20,000 fine and subsequent daily penalties. They plan to seek relief in US federal court if necessary and have already briefed US authorities on their stance.
Read the original article here
4chan will refuse to pay daily UK fines, its lawyer tells BBC, and honestly, it’s hard to imagine any other outcome. The whole situation feels a bit like a comedy of errors, doesn’t it? It’s almost a given that a platform like 4chan, operating with a global reach and likely minimal UK-based infrastructure, would simply laugh in the face of daily fines levied by the UK government. The lawyer’s stance, as reported by the BBC, is a pretty straightforward assessment of the reality of the situation.
The core issue seems to boil down to enforceability. The UK government, like any entity, has its limits when it comes to jurisdiction. If 4chan is offshore and doesn’t have significant assets within the UK, the UK’s ability to collect those fines becomes incredibly challenging. It would require international cooperation, potentially asking other countries to act on its behalf, and that relies on diplomatic power, which isn’t a sure thing. The question is, how much effort are they willing to put into something that will more than likely fail?
The alternative that the UK could pursue is to block access to 4chan within the UK itself. This is something they can do, and it’s a more direct approach. However, as many have pointed out, this action would most likely lead to a surge in the use of VPNs. Ironically, it would be a free advertisement for those VPNs, as users look for ways to circumvent the block. It’s a game of cat and mouse, and it’s easy to see how the costs and the energy would be a lot on the UK.
The issue of enforcing cyber activity is, indeed, a tricky one. It’s hard to catch and prosecute hackers, especially those based in countries that don’t play nice with others, such as Russia or North Korea. The situation with 4chan seems analogous. The UK government is trying to control something that’s fundamentally global, and that’s a tough battle to win.
Of course, it’s worth noting that governments *can* take action. They can order ISPs to block domains. They can seize domains that violate their laws, and issue arrest warrants. But those warrants, as seen in the cases of Kim Dotcom and Julian Assange, are complex and hard to enforce. The reach of international law is not unlimited, and it’s especially constrained when it comes to online activity that exists across borders.
There’s an underlying concern here about the broader implications of this kind of legislation. It’s a sign that nation-states are starting to assert more control over the internet within their borders. Some believe that this is the beginning of the end of the global internet as we know it, with countries increasingly walling themselves off. It’s something that seems to be happening, and is concerning to those of us who believe in the free flow of information.
The debate also raises questions about the legal framework itself. If a platform isn’t based in the UK, and doesn’t have any presence there, how can the UK government reasonably expect to enforce its laws? Many people seem to feel that the law itself is absurd and that this is just the beginning of many more conflicts to come. The law is essentially unenforceable outside the UK.
One imagines the meetings at Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator, playing out like a Monty Python sketch. The idea of a government trying to fine a US-based website over something, well, it’s hard not to chuckle at the absurdity of it. I mean, what’s the UK going to do, send a strongly worded letter? Arrest the entire team?
Then there’s the practical side of things. 4chan’s lawyer’s job is not clear whether it is going to be cushy or stressful, but 4chan’s stated that they operate with thin margins, making compliance with age verification and data handling a costly endeavor. The UK is effectively attempting to force its laws onto entities that operate outside its jurisdiction. So, as the lawyer said, it’s probably not going to happen.
4chan’s reputation isn’t exactly one of compliance, but people are quick to say they are responsive to requests from law enforcement agencies, despite what you might think. But that is the thing here, there is no actual way to force them to do things, as the platform itself will simply be shut down.
The discussion also brings up the role of VPNs. They’re tools to get around restrictive laws, but they’re only effective as long as the countries you’re in tolerate them. There are already discussions and implementation of technology that can ban or limit VPNs.
In the end, what might the UK do? The government might choose the smart route of simply blocking the website, and the rest of the world, well, they can all use VPNs. But you can’t forget that these laws also corporatize the internet. The cost of compliance is extremely high, and that will hurt smaller entities.
The situation in the UK is a very different ballgame than in the US, where the “Online Safety Act” would be struck down immediately. It’s the protection of the First Amendment. The sheer chaos and disruption that would follow such a law in the US would be biblical. That might not be an issue in the UK.
In the end, 4chan’s approach seems like the most sensible one, it seems like a matter of “Don’t play by their rules.” It would cost the UK money and resources and that’s about it. It’s a bit of a shame that the UK might not be as supportive as the USA in the end. But that’s what they are likely to do, at least until they learn.