4chan will refuse to pay daily UK fines, its lawyer tells BBC

A lawyer representing the online message board, 4chan, said he would not pay the proposed fine by the UK’s media regulator for implementing the online Security Law.

According to Preston Byrne, the executive partner of the law firm byrne & Storm, Ofcom has decided to temporarily give a fines of £ 20,000 as long as it does not comply with the request of the site.

“Ofcom’s notifications of the United States did not create a legal obligation in the United States,” he told the BBC.

Ofcom refused to comment while the investigation continued.

Byrne, “4Chan has not enacted any laws in the United States – my client will not pay any penalty.” He said.

Ofcom started to investigate 4chan Whether the UK complies with its obligations under the online security law.

Later, in August, he said that he had published 4Chan a “temporary infringement notification” because he did not comply with two information requests.

Ofcom said that the investigation would examine whether the message board complies with the Law, including the requirements of illegal protection from illegal content.

4Chan is at the center of online debates in 22, including enemy campaigns and conspiracy theories.

Users are anonymously, which can often lead to the publication of excessive content.

In a statement published in X, the law firms Byrne & Storm and Coleman Law, 4Chan is a US company in the US and is therefore protected against the United Kingdom law.

“American enterprises do not submit their right to the first change because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e -mail.”

“In accordance with the established principles of US laws, the American courts will not force external penalties or censorship codes.

He continued: “If necessary, we will seek an appropriate relief in the US Federal Court to verify these principles.”

They said that the US officials were “informed” about their response to the investigation of Ofcom.

The Trump calls for all diplomatic and legal leverages to protect American businesses from “product executive censorship tasks”.

Ofcom said that the online Security Law only required only the UK -based users to serve.

Some American politicians – especially the Trump administration, allies and officials – returned to what US technology companies see as excessive access in the regulation of the UK and the EU.

A perceived influence of the Online Security Law on free speech has been a special source of concern, but other laws have been a source of dispute.

On August 19, US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard said that Britain had withdrawn a controversial “back door” request in an Apple data protection system – he said he was working with the president and the vice president to allow England to leave his plan.

Two days later, the US Federal Trade Commission President Andrew Ferguson warned major technology firms to violate US laws if they weaken the requirements of privacy and data safety by complying with international laws, such as the online security law.

“Foreign governments who want to limit free expression or weaken data safety in the United States may rely on their incentives to simplify their operations and legal adaptation measures by implementing uniform policies between the judicial regions.” He said.

4Chan If he fights successfully in the US courts, it may be other options of OCOM.

“It’s hard to implement against the open sea provider,” he said to the BBC.

“Instead, ofCOM may ask a court to order a provider, such as asking a service to be removed from the search results or to block the UK payments, to order other services to break the UK business.

“If ofcom does not think that it would be enough to prevent a significant damage, it may ask the OSS to block the access of England.”