The central question of the 4chan/Kiwi Farms lawsuit is this: do the six billion Internet users on our planet get to access American infrastructure on the terms of
- the First Amendment, or
- the UK's Online Safety Act.
- the First Amendment, or
- the UK's Online Safety Act.
See this, unearthed by @thetimes, where Kit Malthouse and Ofcom's Chief Exec said the OSA applies to any company with a UK user *even if* the user hits the service via a VPN.
I presume they're referring to my client Kiwi Farms.
I presume they're referring to my client Kiwi Farms.
@thetimes The logical conclusion here is that unless you KYC and ID all of your users to get all UK users off your service, a requirement which is repugnant to the First Amendment, the UK Parliament believes you're in scope.
Link to hearing transcript:
committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1…
Link to hearing transcript:
committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1…
@thetimes The First Amendment protects Americans' rights to receive information from, and impart information to, anyone, anywhere on our planet.
If Europe wants to erect its own "Iron Firewall," that is their business. Americans have the right to refuse to cooperate with that effort.
If Europe wants to erect its own "Iron Firewall," that is their business. Americans have the right to refuse to cooperate with that effort.
@thetimes In the alternative, Europe could try to invent something instead of taxing everything that moves until it dies, then you could regulate your own stuff.
My colleagues at the @ASI have some helpful suggestions on that point if you're interested in examining that further.
My colleagues at the @ASI have some helpful suggestions on that point if you're interested in examining that further.
@thetimes @ASI I'm also going to just leave this here, presented without comment.
Wider context of that statement in the hearing transcript:
The problem with the Online Safety Act is that the law is irreconcilable with the First Amendment.
A US company cannot fully exercise its First Amendment rights without violating the OSA.
One regime will survive, and the other will not.
That's what this suit is about.
A US company cannot fully exercise its First Amendment rights without violating the OSA.
One regime will survive, and the other will not.
That's what this suit is about.
Calling an American on the phone doesn't teleport that American to the UK.
Navigating to an American website doesn't teleport that website's servers to the UK.
Pretty simple
Navigating to an American website doesn't teleport that website's servers to the UK.
Pretty simple
https://x.com/Magistrotheriu1/status/1961453441068286055
As a matter of U.S. domestic law, the analysis is actually very simple.
I'll tell you what I told the Home Office: if the UK wants my clients' constitutional rights, it will need to put ground troops on U.S. soil and take them by force.
I'll tell you what I told the Home Office: if the UK wants my clients' constitutional rights, it will need to put ground troops on U.S. soil and take them by force.
https://x.com/Magistrotheriu1/status/1961542916285116818
They don't. But then again, Parliament's edicts don't apply in America, either, and Americans are entitled to court rulings that say as much.
If the UK wants to ban US sites, that's the UK's problem.
You want to control US servers? Come and get them.
If the UK wants to ban US sites, that's the UK's problem.
You want to control US servers? Come and get them.
https://x.com/Magistrotheriu1/status/1961560431639576634
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
