> 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 entertainment (this reply was entertaining), and to send a message to the US that (in its opinion) the US government cooperating with the UK on this would be illegal by US law, the only law that matters to the US legal system. Other countries laws only matter insofar as they are allowed by US law. Foreign laws will not get US constitution bypass unless the US constitution itself allows it.

It's as if DPRK demanded to have a US citizen extradited in order to be executed for blasphemy. All that US citizen cares about is to give a heads up to the US that "if these people come knocking, tell them to go fuck themselves".

What is the UK government going to do, send bobbies over to attack 4chan owners with nerve gas on US soil?

What's the alternative? I'm sure there are countries where it's illegal for women to show their faces on TV. Why wouldn't that country have the power to hold any website where women's faces are shown accountable?

On a more depressing note, as is super clear in the US lately, crime is perfectly legal, if your friend (or POTUS you bribed) orders you to not be prosecuted. Or pardons you for being a drug kingpin and mobster ordering murders of innocent people (Ross Ulbricht).

Power ultimately comes from the exercise of violence. The UK cannot exercise state violence on US soil. That's a US monopoly under very harsh penalty. On US soil only US law (or in the case of Trump, lawlessness) can de facto be exercised.

Also, from their reply:

> The infinite character of that power was most famously summed up by English lawyer Sir Ivor Jennings, who once said that “if Parliament enacts that smoking in the streets of Paris is an offence, then it is an offence”. This line is taught to every first-year English law student.

Why should parisians care? Why would France cooperate with enforcing such laws?

If POTUS orders that taking $50k in cash as a bribe is not to be prosecuted, then you won't be prosecuted.

▲

flumpcakes a day ago | parent | next [-]

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 you can go about your life breaking DPRK law as much as you want.

▲

senorrib a day ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

flumpcakes a day ago | parent [-]

> 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.

	▲	tremon a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Is your claim that you have a multinational business, just because of a single webpage? Do you file sales tax reports in all 165 countries?
	▲	inkyoto a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> > > UK users are accessing US servers to get service. > That's called offering the service to UK users. It is not – not under US law, not under common law (in the UK/Commonwealth). Under US law and in common law systems generally, a website being merely accessible from country XYZ does not, by itself, constitute «offering a service» into XYZ. Courts look for purposeful targeting of, or meaningful interaction with, users in that place. Mere accessibility is not enough. See [0] for a precedent. 1. The US approach in a nutshell. a) Personal-jurisdiction basics: a court needs «minimum contacts» that the website operator created with the forum. The US Supreme Court has previously stressed that the plaintiff’s location or where effects are felt is not enough if the defendant did not create forum contacts. b) The «Zippo sliding scale» test distinguishes passive sites from interactive, commercial ones. Passive presence online generally does not create jurisdiction. See [1] for a landmark opinion. c) The Fourth Circuit’s ALS Scan test says a state may exercise jurisdiction when the defendant directs electronic activity into the state, with a manifest intent to do business or interact there, and that activity gives rise to the claim. Simply putting content on the web is not enough. Again, see [0] for an established precedent. 2. The common law/European «targeting» idea a) UK and EU courts apply a similar targeting notion in various contexts. The CJEU in Pammer/Alpenhof held that a site must be directed to the consumer’s member state; mere accessibility is insufficient. UK cases on online IP use also examine whether activity is targeted at UK users. See [2] for an established precedent on the other side of the pond. b) Data-protection law is also explicit: the GDPR applies to non-EU operators when they offer goods or services to people in the EU or monitor them. Recital 23 and the EDPB’s guidelines list indicators such as using a local language or currency, shipping to the territory, local contact details, and targeted ads. Accessibility alone does not trigger the rule. To recap, if a US-hosted site simply serves content that UK users can reach, that alone does not mean the operator is «offering a service» to the UK or its citizens under US law or general common-law principles. Liability or regulatory reach typically turns on targeting and purposeful availment, not mere availability. Circle back to [0] for details again. [0] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/293... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippo_Manufacturing_Co._v._Zip.... [2] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

▲

knorker a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I think you are confusing breaking a law, and enforceability.

I'm not. My comment and other replies to you are telling you that YOU are.

We're saying that your question doesn't make any sense.

▲

sampli a day ago | parent | prev [-]

nitpicking like this is asinine

▲

tremon a day ago | parent | prev [-]

It's as if DPRK demanded to have a US citizen extradited in order to be executed for blasphemy

Not really. It's more like DPRK messaging a private US citizen directly, repeatedly and incessantly, that they will be executed for blasphemy. Ofcom is not using proper diplomatic channels here.

Why should parisians care? Why would France cooperate with enforcing such laws?

Everyone here seems convinced that Parisians should care about this, because the majority opinion seems to be that it's perfectly acceptable for the UK government to arrest Parisians for having ever smoked a cigarette in Paris, should they set foot on UK soil. I do not agree that this is a defensible application of law.

	▲	bluGill a day ago \| parent [-]
		The question is will France stand for arresting people for smoking in Paris if they travel to the UK. The gonernment of France can allow that or they can retaliate in various ways. Just a diplomatic message is likely enough to make the UK back down - but who knows maybe the two won't agree and go to war.