Seems like a lot of needless drama. What real legal threat did they pose that warranted a federal suit in the US against Ofcom?

Just ignore Ofcom?

▲

ongy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's about getting a clear statement form the US government that this can be ignored at no risk to them aiding in enforcement.

I.e. peace of mind. Not just for the large~ish (questionable in various ways, as the lawyer points out himself) sites currently under fire, but for all the minor ones that simply don't have the resources to comply with every country.

(I haven't read today's article) in a previous blog post, they did mention that geo-blocking the UK was not enough for ofcom to stop the harassment. So having a clear statement, and potentially using that as angle to accuse Ofcom of harassment should they not stop, would be quite welcome.

While the US has a great track record with protecting their own citizen against legal threats from the outside (maybe a bit too much at times), I'd love the same to be done in the EU, since I'm a lot more doubtful about our relations with the UK in such aspects.

▲

gpm 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

More than that if his clients ever do end up in the UK for whatever reason his letters sent on their behalf to the UK government are going to be prime evidence that the violation of the law was wilful.

Meanwhile if his clients remain beyond the UKs reach sending these letters achieves nothing of value.

There's no world where this response convinces Ofcom to stop doing their job at enforcing (to the best of their ability) the UKs laws.

He is just hurting his own clients by sending letters back to them.

▲

Vespasian 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I, without proof, think that ofcom will file these letters as "second best outcome" (from their perspective).

Of course it would have been "best" (again for ofcom) if 4chan had just complied but I don't think they ever expected that.

With these meaningless letters (for the reasons you state) the agency can later go to law makers and ask for more domestic enforcement power because clearly "it's not working".

If by chance one of the 4chan people stumbles about that personally they'd consider that as a bonus.

▲

binary132 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think it’s great that someone is loudly and publicly saying no to them.

▲

cmcaleer 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You don’t need to loudly and publicly say no to Roskomnadzor’s extrajudicial notices, by recognising them you’re giving them more legitimacy than they deserve by acknowledging at all rather than treating the notice as the spam it is.

Just because the UK is modelling themselves in the same image doesn’t mean that the tactic for dealing with extrajudicial censorship attempts is different.

	▲	aydyn 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The Granite act is a direct result of this loud response. Being loud means that U.S. politicians notice, a U.S. under secratary notices, which means a stronger and more legally binding response is possible. Legislature and foreign diplomacy is involved not just some idealistic whining about jurisdiction. https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1996398535189860688

▲

gpm 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean I don't particularly agree but I can understand the sentiment.

That's not what I'm saying just harms his clients though. There's obvious (almost entirely domestic, probably counter productive as to UK politics) lobbying value in that. It's the part where he sends confessions back to the UK regulators privately that just harms his clients.

	▲	d1sxeyes 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The high-profile, public, Arkell vs. Pressdram type response increases public awareness. Without that, he’s just a guy with a blog, and can’t effect any real change. Whether it harms or benefits his clients or not is likely a question of politics. If these responses drum up enough attention that his GRANITE act gets passed, that’s arguably a better outcome for each client jointly and severally than just ignoring the letters.