I was going to say that Guido’s headline cannot be improved upon, but, on second thoughts, the headline-writer really should have mentioned that the hamster was dressed as Godzilla. Details matter.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil Liberties
Commentary
EconomicsPolitics |
“Ofcom Fines 4chan £520,000, Lawyer Responds With Picture Of Giant Hamster”Natalie Solent (Essex) · Civil liberty, Law & Regulation · International affairs · Internet · Japan · Media & Journalism · North American affairs · UK affairs March 20th, 2026 |
 16 comments to “Ofcom Fines 4chan £520,000, Lawyer Responds With Picture Of Giant Hamster”Leave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
He could have simply referred OFCOM to Arkell vs Pressdram!
Yes indeed.
“Ofcom” and the rest of the regime, and it most certainly is a regime, can Go-To-Hell.
I see a lot of comments on tech sites, thinking they’re being helpful, to the effect that ”perhaps the solution is for 4chan to ban UK IP addresses”. No. Preston Byrne has it absolutely correct. 4chan is under no obligation to do a damned thing.
Excellent 🤣
Good stuff, most amusing. Very Arkell v P.
Does anyone happen to know if American regulators fine British companies? If they do, and I assume they do, then this American Revolution stuff is a bit tired. Or, alternatively, it works both ways …
Their response is spot on. Ofcom has no jurisdiction and needs to be told that good and hard.
In the latest development, Ofcom has sent a letter to the Sun (the star, not the newspaper) complaining that its constant generation of solar winds is interfering with broadcast signals in the UK. It has issued a fine of ten trillion pounds.
The Sun set fire to the letter.
They can try to regulate the internet as much as they want. Someone will invent a new one.
“Hails of derisive laughter, Bruce!”
How about 4chan and other US communications companies simply cut off all UK Government access to their products and services? Hurts where pain will matter but doesn’t cut off the UK market broadly.
Seems like a useful experiment.
Excellent comments.
Thank you to the people who wrote them – and thank you to Natalie for the post.
I am terribly worried that the United States might take a ‘kinetic’ approach to upholding the First Amendment.
Thinking it over, I feel better now.
Sure they do. When they have jurisdiction over such a company, which is the power that is lacking in this case.
The line about the Revolution is just shorthand for “if you cannot attach and/or seize company assets within the UK, or if you are not operating within some pre-agreed treaty with the US or contract with the offending company, then your country – a separate country from the US – has no power here, no jurisdiction here, because we completely severed official connections when we removed ourselves from your purview, and thus you should go pound sand.”
In many cases, the UK can come to an American court and ask that a Brit judgment be enforced here.
But it will never be enforced when the judgment is based on something that offends the US’s Constitution, or is procured without what we deem to be due process.
bobby b
You will tell us next that Americans might have a problem with getting rid of trial-by-jury – do they not understand that it is much more efficient to have the guilty verdict (and the punishment) decided before the “trial”? And that Americans might have a problem with officials making up “laws” – for example with the body (made up mostly of representatives of Islamic bodies – but invited to decide by the British government) that has decided (without bothering to consult Parliament – not that the modern Parliament is worth a Tinker’s curse anyway) that “hostility to Muslims” is a “crime”. How horribly unprogressive of you to not understand that laws should be a vague as possible, so that people can be sent to prison whenever the state feels like doing so.
There is a philosophical root to all this.
The British establishment hold that the rulers (supposedly Parliament – but see later) can do anything they want – that any whim of theirs is “law” – including the power to give this power away to some other body (for example Parliament giving away its powers to officials). In all this one can see the influence of Sir Francis Bacon, his follower Thomas Hobbes – and Sir William Blackstone who (a century later) made this despotic principle respectable, by dressing it up in legal language – and pretending to revere natural law (natural justice) and its expression in Common Law.
And is there a principle that the edicts of the rulers should follow? Yes says the British establishment – “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” – this they get from Jeremy Bentham (he of the 13 Departments of State controlling just about everything).
So, for example, if it is, supposedly good for “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” to get people to perjure themselves in a libel case – the British establishment will arrange this, after all the target is a “bad person” (even though he told the truth – did not libel anyone) – and it adds to the “greatest happiness or the greatest number” to put him in prison – so he can not spread political dissent. Prison for libel? Oh it can be arranged – with enough twisting of the laws. Ditto prison for reporting a court case – if you do not like the person reporting on it.
Would they frame someone for murder? Of course they would – IF by doing so they believed they were adding to “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”.
But why bother framing someone for a natural law (natural justice) – as expressed in Common Law, crime. Why not make-up new “crimes” such as “Anti Muslim Hostility” (or having blue eyes – or parting your hair on the wrong side – or whatever) for people you wish to send to fine – or send to prison.
I know. I feel bad. I should just trust our Betters. 😉