19 ms·

"Users in the UK". Yes, that means it applies to you if you run a Telnet server and a British person logs in to it and might find a text file created by someon

by b800h 3y ago

"Users in the UK". Yes, that means it applies to you if you run a Telnet server and a British person logs in to it and might find a text file created by someone from the US there. You need an age gate in front of the login, unless you can satisfactorily demonstrate that you have few under-18s as users. How to prove that? The law doesn't say.

HeckFeck 3y ago
IRCv3: now with age verification for our UK users!
neilv 3y ago
Under what circumstances is someone doing a startup in the US subject to this UK regulation?
- b800h 3y ago
  If any of your users might conceivably be resident in Britain.
  - neilv 3y ago
    But we dumped all that tea in the harbor.
msla 3y ago
No. The UK doesn't get to enforce its law everywhere just because it says its law is enforceable everywhere. There's already precedent here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act > The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act is a 2010 federal statutory law in the United States that makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless either the foreign legislation applied offers at least as much protection as the U.S. First Amendment (concerning freedom of speech), or the defendant would have been found liable even if the case had been heard under U.S. law. > The act was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama. [snip] > The act was written as a response to libel tourism.[1] It creates a new cause of action and claim for damages against a foreign libel plaintiff, if they acted to deprive an American (or certain lawful aliens) of their right to free speech.[2] Despite its goals, it is seen as a weak response to the problem of libel tourism as, although it establishes a new cause of action in § 4104, and allows for the collection of "reasonable" attorneys' fees in § 4105,[note 1] it does not allow for damages to plaintiffs in contrast with stronger provisions in proposed bills which did not pass such as the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (H.R.1304, 111th Congress).[3]: 22 > It was inspired by the legal battle that ensued between Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz over her 2003 book Funding Evil.[4] Just to make it even clearer: "Libel tourism" basically means taking your case to British courts, which are hilariously pro-plaintiff when it comes to libel. That's what happened with Ehrenfeld.
- b800h 3y ago
  You say that, but if you want your site to be accessible from the UK or ever plan on touching down in the country, it applies to you.

by b800h 3y ago

HeckFeck 3y ago

IRCv3: now with age verification for our UK users!

neilv 3y ago

Under what circumstances is someone doing a startup in the US subject to this UK regulation?

b800h 3y ago
If any of your users might conceivably be resident in Britain.
- neilv 3y ago
  But we dumped all that tea in the harbor.

msla 3y ago

No. The UK doesn't get to enforce its law everywhere just because it says its law is enforceable everywhere. There's already precedent here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act > The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established Constitutional Heritage (SPEECH) Act is a 2010 federal statutory law in the United States that makes foreign libel judgments unenforceable in U.S. courts, unless either the foreign legislation applied offers at least as much protection as the U.S. First Amendment (concerning freedom of speech), or the defendant would have been found liable even if the case had been heard under U.S. law. > The act was passed by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama. [snip] > The act was written as a response to libel tourism.[1] It creates a new cause of action and claim for damages against a foreign libel plaintiff, if they acted to deprive an American (or certain lawful aliens) of their right to free speech.[2] Despite its goals, it is seen as a weak response to the problem of libel tourism as, although it establishes a new cause of action in § 4104, and allows for the collection of "reasonable" attorneys' fees in § 4105,[note 1] it does not allow for damages to plaintiffs in contrast with stronger provisions in proposed bills which did not pass such as the Free Speech Protection Act of 2009 (H.R.1304, 111th Congress).[3]: 22 > It was inspired by the legal battle that ensued between Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld and Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz over her 2003 book Funding Evil.[4] Just to make it even clearer: "Libel tourism" basically means taking your case to British courts, which are hilariously pro-plaintiff when it comes to libel. That's what happened with Ehrenfeld.

b800h 3y ago
You say that, but if you want your site to be accessible from the UK or ever plan on touching down in the country, it applies to you.