5 ms·

From the attorney's post: > The infinite character of that power was most famously summed up by English lawyer Sir Ivor Jennings, who once said that “if Parlia

From the attorney's post: > 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. Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. But really the crucial thing is: > We explained to the UK that the Online Safety Act had a snowball’s chance in hell of being enforced in the United States Ofcom has to go through the motions of telling 4chan they can't smoke in Paris because of the (very on-brand) nanny law.

PaulRobinson 1y ago
Not quite. Ofcom in their reply make their point clear: "The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom [...]" They are stating that companies operating in the UK and providing services to UK individuals, are required to conform with UK regulations in relation to those services, under UK law. As an American business, you can choose to ignore that, but that has consequences if any of your board of directors ever sets foot in the UK. The US does this, and US lawyers understand this. If I open an online poker and sports bookmaking site in the UK (where such sites are completely legal), and take business from all over the United States thereby breaking federal law, I can expect to be met at the plane door the next time I take a shopping trip to NYC. Arguing that my servers and my business are located in the UK is not going to impress the federal judge I'd appear in front of in the morning. Stating the US laws against my activities have a snowball's chance in hell of being enforced in the UK is surely going to risk me being charged with contempt. The Online Safety Act is ridiculous on many levels, but in the same way that Google does certain things in relation to Tiananmen Square searches in China, and every tech company engages in regulatory alignment for the entire Middle East, the UK has asked that US companies do certain things in the jurisdiction of the UK. I'd argue, less harmful and egregious things in some respects. Should the UK do this? No, probably not. I think it will just make VPN software vendors richer, and UK citizens - particularly children - barely any safer. Are Ofcom claiming jurisdiction in the US? No, they're claiming jurisdiction in the UK. Which, I hasten to add they are legally required to do by the Online Safety Act, by the government they are an agency of. If they didn't, the government would literally be breaking its own law. TIL that 4chan's lawyer is about as grown up, mature and able to engage in critical thinking about the law as the people who post on his client's site.
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  4Chan operates out of the US. The UK can ban it if it wants but it can not unilaterally make demands of 4chan and expect courts to enforce them, because it has no jurisdiction over 4chan's activities.
  - noAnswer 1y ago
    [flagged]
- delfinom 1y ago
  >As an American business, you can choose to ignore that, but that has consequences if any of your board of directors ever sets foot in the UK. The board of directors for a private company is generally secret in the US. Only the "manager" aka president/CEO/whoever at the top is generally named publicly, as well as legal agent.
  - nradov 1y ago
    I suspect that MI6 could find a US private company's directors names if they wanted to. We're not talking about nuclear launch codes here.
    - TheRealPomax 1y ago
      I suspect MI6 has much better things to do.
    - delfinom 1y ago
      Not really that easily? Generally, only the legal agent for the private company will know and the direct hires of the board i.e. the CEO/CTO/whoever they name up top. Sometimes board of directors can get named in court records but with the public records redacted. But outside of that? Not even the IRS knows unless the directors get compensation. MI6 would have to commit a few physical in person crimes to get any details out of any reasonably well run operation.
bluGill 1y ago
Technically yes, but arresting US citizens will have implications and you can expect the us will protest via diplomatic channels. It is very unlikely UK is interested in that. Not that countries don't prosicute laws for crimes outsiden of their border, but the bar for what they will is higher.
- miohtama 1y ago
  The bar for British is arresting old ladies saying nasty things online, so practically their bar is already gone.
  - iamacyborg 1y ago
    No, the older women are being arrested for protesting in the streets in support of an organisation our government has deemed to be aligned with terrorism. It’s entirely silly but not as silly as your example.
    - immibis 1y ago
      No, the older women are being arrested for protesting in the streets against an organisation that is committing terrorism, because the government has deemed that actual terrorism is not terrorism and opposing terrorism is the real terrorism, and a bunch of nonsensical things like that.
      - iamacyborg 1y ago
        I think you consuming too much right wing American media.
        bobsmooth 1y ago
        I think you're willfully ignoring how authoritarian your country is.
        1y ago
hexbin010 1y ago
> Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. Right, it's nothing of the sort. It's a proactive quip to highlight the absolute sovereignty of Parliament. Jennings is emphasising that Parliament has the ultimate legal authority to make any law, no matter how absurd, impractical, or unenforceable.
oefrha 1y ago
Ironic considering that U.S. does long arm enforcement all the time, often successfully. You can often read stories about U.S. seizing random foreign websites, bitcoins and shit on this very forum. I guess the part where Britain looks “very silly” is that UK’s long arm is much more likely to be ignored than US’s long arm since British Empire’s sun has set? > as if we haven’t yet shucked-off the American Revolution, let alone colonialism. I can’t even.
- fnord123 1y ago
  [flagged]
mschuster91 1y ago
> Ofcom has to go through the motions of telling 4chan they can't smoke in Paris because of the (very on-brand) nanny law. The thing is, Ofcom can still issue fines, and enforce these fines against anyone in the UKs legal scope advertising on 4chan.
exe34 1y ago
The UK already claims extraterritorial jurisdiction in some extreme cases like pedophilia and terrorism.

PaulRobinson 1y ago

Not quite. Ofcom in their reply make their point clear: "The [Online Safety] Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom [...]" They are stating that companies operating in the UK and providing services to UK individuals, are required to conform with UK regulations in relation to those services, under UK law. As an American business, you can choose to ignore that, but that has consequences if any of your board of directors ever sets foot in the UK. The US does this, and US lawyers understand this. If I open an online poker and sports bookmaking site in the UK (where such sites are completely legal), and take business from all over the United States thereby breaking federal law, I can expect to be met at the plane door the next time I take a shopping trip to NYC. Arguing that my servers and my business are located in the UK is not going to impress the federal judge I'd appear in front of in the morning. Stating the US laws against my activities have a snowball's chance in hell of being enforced in the UK is surely going to risk me being charged with contempt. The Online Safety Act is ridiculous on many levels, but in the same way that Google does certain things in relation to Tiananmen Square searches in China, and every tech company engages in regulatory alignment for the entire Middle East, the UK has asked that US companies do certain things in the jurisdiction of the UK. I'd argue, less harmful and egregious things in some respects. Should the UK do this? No, probably not. I think it will just make VPN software vendors richer, and UK citizens - particularly children - barely any safer. Are Ofcom claiming jurisdiction in the US? No, they're claiming jurisdiction in the UK. Which, I hasten to add they are legally required to do by the Online Safety Act, by the government they are an agency of. If they didn't, the government would literally be breaking its own law. TIL that 4chan's lawyer is about as grown up, mature and able to engage in critical thinking about the law as the people who post on his client's site.

HDThoreaun 1y ago
4Chan operates out of the US. The UK can ban it if it wants but it can not unilaterally make demands of 4chan and expect courts to enforce them, because it has no jurisdiction over 4chan's activities.
- noAnswer 1y ago
  [flagged]
delfinom 1y ago
>As an American business, you can choose to ignore that, but that has consequences if any of your board of directors ever sets foot in the UK. The board of directors for a private company is generally secret in the US. Only the "manager" aka president/CEO/whoever at the top is generally named publicly, as well as legal agent.
- nradov 1y ago
  I suspect that MI6 could find a US private company's directors names if they wanted to. We're not talking about nuclear launch codes here.
  - TheRealPomax 1y ago
    I suspect MI6 has much better things to do.
  - delfinom 1y ago
    Not really that easily? Generally, only the legal agent for the private company will know and the direct hires of the board i.e. the CEO/CTO/whoever they name up top. Sometimes board of directors can get named in court records but with the public records redacted. But outside of that? Not even the IRS knows unless the directors get compensation. MI6 would have to commit a few physical in person crimes to get any details out of any reasonably well run operation.

bluGill 1y ago

Technically yes, but arresting US citizens will have implications and you can expect the us will protest via diplomatic channels. It is very unlikely UK is interested in that. Not that countries don't prosicute laws for crimes outsiden of their border, but the bar for what they will is higher.

miohtama 1y ago
The bar for British is arresting old ladies saying nasty things online, so practically their bar is already gone.
- iamacyborg 1y ago
  No, the older women are being arrested for protesting in the streets in support of an organisation our government has deemed to be aligned with terrorism. It’s entirely silly but not as silly as your example.
  - immibis 1y ago
    No, the older women are being arrested for protesting in the streets against an organisation that is committing terrorism, because the government has deemed that actual terrorism is not terrorism and opposing terrorism is the real terrorism, and a bunch of nonsensical things like that.
    - iamacyborg 1y ago
      I think you consuming too much right wing American media.
      - bobsmooth 1y ago
        I think you're willfully ignoring how authoritarian your country is.
        1y ago

hexbin010 1y ago

> Initially this seems like disrespect for another country's sovereignty. Right, it's nothing of the sort. It's a proactive quip to highlight the absolute sovereignty of Parliament. Jennings is emphasising that Parliament has the ultimate legal authority to make any law, no matter how absurd, impractical, or unenforceable.

oefrha 1y ago

Ironic considering that U.S. does long arm enforcement all the time, often successfully. You can often read stories about U.S. seizing random foreign websites, bitcoins and shit on this very forum. I guess the part where Britain looks “very silly” is that UK’s long arm is much more likely to be ignored than US’s long arm since British Empire’s sun has set? > as if we haven’t yet shucked-off the American Revolution, let alone colonialism. I can’t even.

fnord123 1y ago
[flagged]

mschuster91 1y ago

> Ofcom has to go through the motions of telling 4chan they can't smoke in Paris because of the (very on-brand) nanny law. The thing is, Ofcom can still issue fines, and enforce these fines against anyone in the UKs legal scope advertising on 4chan.

exe34 1y ago

The UK already claims extraterritorial jurisdiction in some extreme cases like pedophilia and terrorism.