Not quite. There are well-established legal mechanisms for Ofcom (or anyone) to try to engage legally with companies domiciled in the US and with no locus in the UK. Rather than using these mechanisms, they have tried to short-circuit the process by sending emails that have no legal force.

▲

baobabKoodaa a day ago | parent | next [-]

Hmmh. If some powerful law enforcement agency was coming after me to stop my website, I sure would hope they would first send me an email asking me to stop.

▲

james_in_the_uk a day ago | parent | prev [-]

What “well established process” would apply here ?

▲

lalaithion a day ago | parent [-]

The US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance treaty imposes obligations on Ofcom which they have not met, 4chan claims:

“None of these actions constitutes valid service under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, United States law or any other proper international legal process.”

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71209929/1/4chan-commun...

▲

james_in_the_uk a day ago | parent [-]

MLAT applies only to a narrow set of legal procedures, essentially around criminal activity. I’m a lawyer but this is very specialist stuff. I’m not expert enough to opine on whether MLAT applies here but - simply judging by the quality of their respective legal work on display - I’m minded to believe that Ofcom knows what they are doing. OTOH 4chan’s rhetoric reeks of FUD.

▲

intended 21 hours ago | parent [-]

4chan is 100% FUD and is playing to the gallery.

This is nerd sniping of a different sort. I’m guessing they are aiming to drum up American sentiment for their actions, and because its 4chan.

	▲	Levitz 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		4chan is perfectly aware of its reputation, and if that wasn't enough, it's worth noting they banded with kiwifarms on this one: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyjq40vjl7o >Lawyers representing controversial online forums 4chan and Kiwi Farms have filed a legal case against the UK Online Safety Act enforcer, Ofcom. Drumming up public support is a no-go. Rather, I think the intent is to make the stance that if the UK wants to prevent citizens from accessing sites if they are underage, then the UK can do just that, rather than expect random companies around the world to comply.