1. It's a Pyrrhic victory at best, read it. In reality, 4chan won even though they technically "lost" their argument. They aren't enforced up. That's the win.

2. It's not really obiter dicta because it's a district court order it's not something you cite, really as binding precedent. But if you read between the lines, the court is only dismissing Ofcom because it is part of a sovereign, which means it cannot maintain it's other position. The judge was making it clear he thought Ofcom needed to stop. The ruling is addressed to the parties not really to a future court. If I were Ofcom's lawyer, I wouldn't be celebrating this.

American double standards have nothing to do with this case and it's just a sort of throw in everyone seems to need to mention here. So what? Are they good or bad? If you think they're bad to extend jurisdiction, then take the win.

Long arm jurisdiction is the opposite of what happened here. That's where you pull people into US courts that might not be US citizens for things that happened not in the US. Somehow that implies that foreign companies should be able to reach into the US and bug people in the US not doing anything in their own country? Oh, but USA bad so you scored that point.

I think you're just seeing Lincoln's hat in the clouds.

Everyone on HN apparently thinks they have a law degree.

> American double standards have nothing to do with this case

> Somehow that implies that foreign companies should be able to reach into the US and bug people in the US not doing anything in their own country?

Is OFCOM the "foreign company"? What you argue here is that this has nothing to do with US double standards. But foreign governments shouldn't be able to reach into the US and impose their will... like the US government does to foreign countries.

> Oh, but USA bad so you scored that point.

> I think you're just seeing Lincoln's hat in the clouds.

> Everyone on HN apparently thinks they have a law degree.

You're trying to hard friend and it's not contributing positively to the conversation at all. Focus on making a coherent argument, not "witty" remarks.

> Somehow that implies that foreign companies should be able to reach into the US and bug people in the US not doing anything in their own country?

well yeah. whats good for the goose is good for the gander. if the US wants to go bug people in their own countries, even going so far as to murder a bunch of people to kidnap a sitting president of a country, youre gonna get others looking to do it in response, and as the US loses its privileged position on the world stage, its gonna have to start complying

[dead]