Battle for Free Speech: 4chan Takes Fight Against UK’s Online Safety Act to US Court

In a bold legal maneuver, 4chan and Kiwi Farms are challenging the UK’s Online Safety Act by filing a lawsuit against the UK communications regulator, Ofcom, in a Washington DC Federal Court. The lawsuit aims to prohibit Ofcom from enforcing the Online Safety Act against them in the United States, asserting that American citizens should not have to concede their constitutional rights to foreign regulators. Preston Byrne, representing the plaintiffs, emphasized that responses from Ofcom do not carry jurisdiction over American service providers.

Ofcom maintains that any service linked to the UK must comply with the Online Safety Act, whether or not it is based in the UK, creating a potential legal grey area for US-based platforms. However, 4chan’s attorneys argue that their clients should not be subjected to British law simply due to having users in the UK. They request the court to affirm that US entities with no UK presence cannot fall under Ofcom’s jurisdiction and that the Online Safety Act conflicts with free speech protections guaranteed by the US Constitution.

The lawsuit arises amidst Ofcom’s assertions that 4chan has violated the Online Safety Act by not adequately responding to requests for information, which reportedly included threats of a provisional fine of £20,000 and ongoing investigations into the platform’s compliance. The legal documents suggest that Ofcom has overstepped its authority by imposing civil and criminal penalties on American entities, infringing upon civil rights and free speech in the process.

Alongside 4chan, Kiwi Farms also faces demands from Ofcom, including a requirement to conduct an illegal content risk assessment. The lawsuit strongly claims that the enforcement actions taken by Ofcom represent serious civil rights violations, seeking both a declaration and a permanent injunction against Ofcom’s enforcement activities in the US. The plaintiffs, through their legal representation, contend that the case addresses fundamental issues regarding the reach of foreign law over US citizens and non-US based businesses.