Law 4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue the UK Over its Age Verification Law - The notorious troll sites filed a lawsuit in U.S. federal court as part of a fight over the UK's Online Safety Act.

https://www.404media.co/4chan-and-kiwi-farms-sue-the-uk-over-its-age-verification-law/
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/26076733-govuscourtsdcd28421810-1/

This article was produced in collaboration with Court Watch, an independent outlet that unearths overlooked court records. Subscribe to them here.

4chan and Kiwi Farms sued the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) over its age verification law in U.S. federal court Wednesday, fulfilling a promise it announced on August 23. In the lawsuit, 4chan and Kiwi Farms claim that threats and fines they have received from Ofcom “constitute foreign judgments that would restrict speech under U.S. law.”

Both entities say in the lawsuit that they are wholly based in the U.S. and that they do not have any operations in the United Kingdom and are therefore not subject to local laws. Ofcom’s attempts to fine and block 4chan and Kiwi Farms, and the lawsuit against Ofcom, highlight the messiness involved with trying to restrict access to specific websites or to force companies to comply with age verification laws.

The lawsuit calls Ofcom an “industry-funded global censorship bureau.”

“Ofcom’s ambitions are to regulate Internet communications for the entire world, regardless of where these websites are based or whether they have any connection to the UK,” the lawsuit states. “On its website, Ofcom states that ‘over 100,000 online services are likely to be in scope of the Online Safety Act—from the largest social media platforms to the smallest community forum.’”

Both 4chan and Kiwi Farms are notorious online communities that are infamous for their largely anything-goes attitude. Users of both forums have been tied to various doxing and harassment campaigns over the years. Still, they have now become the entities fighting the hardest against the UK’s disastrous Online Safety Act, which requires websites and social media platforms to perform invasive age verification checks on their users, which often requires people to upload an ID or otherwise give away their personal information in order to access large portions of the internet. Sites that do not comply are subject to huge fines, regardless of where they are based. The law has resulted in an internet where users need to provide scans of their faces in order to access, for example, certain music videos on Spotify.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has said the Online Safety Act “is a threat to the privacy of users, restricts free expression by arbitrating speech online, exposes users to algorithmic discrimination through face checks, and leaves millions of people without a personal device or form of ID excluded from accessing the internet.”

Ofcom began investigating 4chan over alleged violations of the Online Safety Act in June. On August 13, it announced a provisional decision and stated that 4chan had “contravened its duties” and then began to charge the site a penalty of £20,000 (roughly $26,000) a day. Kiwi Farms has also been threatened with fines, the lawsuit states.

"American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail. In the face of these foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights," Preston Byrne, one of the lawyers representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms, told 404 Media.

"We are aware of the lawsuit," an Ofcom spokesperson told 404 Media. "Under the Online Safety Act, any service that has links with the UK now has duties to protect UK users, no matter where in the world it is based. The Act does not, however, require them to protect users based anywhere else in the world.”

Update: This story has been updated with a comment from Ofcom.
 
Not to derail the thread, and I can't speak for everyone in Britain but just for me and the people around me I have spoken to there is a weird feeling in the air right now. It's like a heat that was slowly rising but is now getting dangerously close to the boiling point. I don't think it's gonna be revolution or some larp shit like that, but it feels like we're gonna see something big happen soon. Only other time I've felt like this is those quiet moments in a gym changing room before you know you're about to fight someone
Stock up on perishables by mid September ish. Not that there's any reason to. Nothing is happening.
 
I know everyone gets the same letter, but the image of slapping a federal summons on the desk of some slimey limey beaurocrat puts a smile on my face.
Gotta admit I got a semi at the idea of printing a copy off and head over since I’m in town tonight.

You gotta understand though change is being pushed, this isn’t organic. (Personal theory, ofcom take a loss to justify taking away more freedom from the indigenous brits) There’s lots of useful idiots who can stick their head up but I’m not one of them.
 
PROTIP: Pretty sure that should read "Veni et accipe, incinaedus pathicus" .... you meant "shameless", right? Or were you going for "shameful"?

(Only on the Farms can we start out making fun of fags and trannies and then get into a debate over Latin adjectives.)
"cinaedus" means "faggot", more or less. Incinaedus isn't a word. "Shameless", iirc would be more like impudens, impudicus, etc.

Pathicus means like a faggot that gets fucked in the ass. Honestly, both of these words imply a passive homosexual. Calling someone both is unusual and redundant.

His flag does read unusually, in other ways as well: accipere means more like "to receive" to "to accept", etc. If he's trying to calque something like "come and take it" or something, it's not quite right, but it is funny that he's telling passive homosexuals to come and be receivers, so maybe he's being intentional there?. However, he might be better saying "veni et cape" (come and seize) vel "veni et tolle" (come and take away). You might also want to replace "et" with "ac" in order to show that the two acts are tied together.

Since he's commanding the submissive gay ass-faggot to come and take, the nouns at the end should also be in the vocative case. The -us form of these words is the nominative. So it might be better to say something like cinaede/pathice. He's talking to the faggot giving him a command, and so for direct address, it needs to be vocative.

So reformed, it might be better to say "veni ac tolle, cinaede/pathice impudens" (come and take, you impudent faggot), or perhaps something like "venite ac tollite, o cinaedi paedicatoresque!" (come ye and take, o ye ass-fucked faggots and ass-rapists), so that it encompasses both the passives and active, predatory homosexuals.

It would depend on exactly what his original english thought was. I'm just sorta assuming that he wants to say something like "come and take it, faggots".
lol deepl hasn't yet integrated Latin and I'm left with Google Translator. Original term was in fact, "Come and take it, pathetic faggots"

However being we have people who can read and write Latin, I thank you for grammar correction and made both flags.

USKF2.webp
USKF3.webp
 
However being we have people who can read and write Latin, I thank you for grammar correction and made both flags.
note that you wouldn't want "cinaede/pathice" with the slash. I was giving you options. Cinaedus means passive faggot. Pathicus...also means passive faggot. Choose either cinaede or pathice. No need for the slash. Using "pathice" might be closer to your original intention.

tollite on the second flag should only have 1 t in the plural imperative stem. toll-ite, not toll-itte. -itte isn't an ending I know of lol.

Google translate is very bad at latin. The cases and word order fuck it up pretty bad. GPT can be good at it somewhat, but it probably would have guardrails if you're trying to translate rude english into latin. It doesn't have much trouble going the other way, though, since authentic latin authors most certainly did use sexual terms of abuse.

I goofed saying "o" there too. That makes it formal and reverent. You could keep it if you're trying to be sarcastically reverential, but otherwise it's not necessary.

"Come and take it, pathetic faggots"

Making it plural would be something like "venite ac tollite, pathici".

The plural vocative is the same as the nominative plural, so it's just pathici here.
 
4chan and Kiwi Farms Sue UK Regulator Ofcom Over Online Censorship Law, Citing First Amendment Violations
Reclaim The Net (archive.ph)
By Dan Frieth
2025-08-28 01:28:31GMT
Two of the internet’s most free-speech supporting platforms, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, are taking their fight for online free speech to court, targeting the UK’s communications regulator, Ofcom, for what they describe as an unconstitutional attempt to enforce British censorship laws on American websites.

In a lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, the plaintiffs argue that the UK’s controversial Online Safety Act is not only an unlawful extraterritorial power grab but a direct attack on foundational American liberties.

Read the complaint here.

The suit calls Ofcom’s enforcement tactics a clear violation of the First Amendment and a dangerous attempt to establish global jurisdiction over online speech.

The complaint lays out how the UK’s censorship regime is being pushed onto American soil, despite the fact that both platforms operate entirely within the United States and are in full compliance with US law.

“Parliament does not have that authority. That issue was settled, decisively, 243 years ago in a war that the UK’s armies lost and are not in any position to relitigate,” Kiwi Farms stated bluntly in a letter responding to Ofcom’s demands.

Ofcom, under the new Online Safety Act, is demanding that platforms like 4chan and Kiwi Farms conduct written “risk assessments,” install content moderation systems, remove speech deemed “illegal” by UK standards, and verify the identities of their users.

The platforms face criminal penalties and steep fines of up to £18 million ($24M) or 10% of their global revenue if they refuse.

The plaintiffs argue these demands are not only legally unenforceable but blatantly unconstitutional. “Where Americans are concerned, the Online Safety Act purports to legislate the Constitution out of existence,” the lawsuit states.

Central to the challenge is the claim that Ofcom, a British corporate regulator funded by the very companies it polices, is attempting to impose UK-style speech control on a global scale.

According to the complaint, Ofcom has no lawful authority to regulate US platforms, let alone to compel speech or force the removal of content that is protected under the US Constitution.

The filing asserts that Ofcom’s threats of imprisonment and massive fines, coupled with demands for speech censorship and compelled disclosure of sensitive company information, constitute “egregious violations of Americans’ civil rights.”

The UK regulator has already targeted both platforms with a series of legal notices and threats, despite lacking jurisdiction or proper legal process.

These include multiple emails and letters declaring 4chan and Kiwi Farms in breach of UK law, none of which were served under the required UK-US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.

The plaintiffs argue that these attempts at enforcement are not just improper, but “repugnant to United States public policy.”

“Ofcom purports to regulate content and interactions on platforms and services with which Plaintiffs’ users are voluntarily interacting,” the complaint says. “Ofcom seeks to control those interactions in order to satisfy the whims of Ofcom employees or the UK law enforcement or political apparatuses.”

Notably, both platforms have limited or no access for UK users in response to the threats. Kiwi Farms, for instance, blocked UK IPs entirely after receiving what it interpreted as an impending Section 100 order demanding compliance.

The lawsuit requests the court to block Ofcom from issuing further demands without going through proper international legal channels and to declare the Online Safety Act’s enforcement efforts unenforceable in the United States.

It also seeks a permanent injunction against any future attempts by Ofcom to impose UK regulations on the plaintiffs.

The case stands as a direct confrontation between two visions of the internet: one based on the US constitutional tradition of free speech and open access, and another that embraces government-mandated safety regimes that can be weaponized to silence speech on a global scale.

For the plaintiffs, the message is clear: they will not yield to foreign censors. As the suit puts it, “Delaware and West Virginia are not part of the UK. Their citizens, both natural and corporate, do not answer to the UK.”

Preston Byrne of Byrne & Storm, P.C., who represents the plaintiffs, told Reclaim The Net the platforms are refusing to comply with Ofcom’s demands because “American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an e-mail.”

He praised the decision by 4chan and Kiwi Farms to stand firm against the foreign regulator, stating, “In the face of these foreign demands, our clients have bravely chosen to assert their constitutional rights.”

Byrne characterized the UK’s censorship law as a calculated attack on the American tech sector, warning that “the UK Online Safety Act is a brazen attempt by a foreign country to hobble American competitiveness and suffocate American freedom by exporting the UK’s censorship laws to our shores.”

He made it clear that the legal team would not allow such interference to go unanswered: “The First Amendment bar is prepared to hale any foreign censor into federal court at any time to defend any American.”

In a statement to Reclaim The Net, Ronald Coleman of the Coleman Law Firm, P.C., co-counsel in the suit, framed the case as a broader defense of national sovereignty and individual liberty.

“With this action, our clients defend the free speech rights of every American,” Coleman said. “Foreign interference of the type seen in this case is precisely what the First Amendment is meant to protect against.” He underscored the importance of the legal challenge, stating, “We have asked the Court to confirm that Ofcom has no authority to impose or enforce unconstitutional UK laws on American soil.”

For years, British authorities have quietly attempted to export their domestic censorship framework to the global internet, often relying on regulatory pressure and legal threats rather than diplomacy or mutual legal process.

But this lawsuit places those efforts squarely in the spotlight and in front of a US federal court.

By challenging Ofcom’s authority head-on, the plaintiffs are forcing a long-overdue confrontation that could reshape how American companies respond to foreign speech demands.

This case may encourage other platforms, large and small, to resist attempts by overseas regulators to dictate what content can and cannot appear on US-based websites.

It sends a signal that silence is no longer the default, and that complying with extraterritorial censorship may carry greater legal and reputational risk than standing firm.

What begins with these two platforms could grow into a wider movement of American companies defending their independence from foreign speech controls.
 
After seeing them implement digital ID in Australia in the same way and with New Zealand close behind, I am watching in awe. Good luck. I hope you guys wipe the floor with them. This has to stop.
 
note that you wouldn't want "cinaede/pathice" with the slash. I was giving you options. Cinaedus means passive faggot. Pathicus...also means passive faggot. Choose either cinaede or pathice. No need for the slash. Using "pathice" might be closer to your original intention.

tollite on the second flag should only have 1 t in the plural imperative stem. toll-ite, not toll-itte. -itte isn't an ending I know of lol.

Google translate is very bad at latin. The cases and word order fuck it up pretty bad. GPT can be good at it somewhat, but it probably would have guardrails if you're trying to translate rude english into latin. It doesn't have much trouble going the other way, though, since authentic latin authors most certainly did use sexual terms of abuse.

I goofed saying "o" there too. That makes it formal and reverent. You could keep it if you're trying to be sarcastically reverential, but otherwise it's not necessary.

"Come and take it, pathetic faggots"

Making it plural would be something like "venite ac tollite, pathici".

The plural vocative is the same as the nominative plural, so it's just pathici here.
Done and done. The extra T was a typo when making all capital.

USKF4.webp

I honestly think this flag should be printed and hung on a pole now. lol
 
Not sure where your original post went, so I'll have to cut and paste parts here...
"cinaedus" means "faggot", more or less. Incinaedus isn't a word. "Shameless", iirc would be more like impudens, impudicus, etc.
Hmmm. Yeah, that's true. OTOH, while incinaedus isn't an attested word, I was operating under the assumption that it's a possible word inasmuch as it fits the pattern of in- being used to create negated forms of adjectives.
His flag does read unusually, in other ways as well: accipere means more like "to receive" to "to accept", etc. If he's trying to calque something like "come and take it" or something, it's not quite right, but it is funny that he's telling passive homosexuals to come and be receivers, so maybe he's being intentional there?. However, he might be better saying "veni et cape" (come and seize) vel "veni et tolle" (come and take away). You might also want to replace "et" with "ac" in order to show that the two acts are tied together.
I didn't catch that the first time around, and honestly I'm tempted to say he should keep it. :D
Since he's commanding the submissive gay ass-faggot to come and take, the nouns at the end should also be in the vocative case. The -us form of these words is the nominative. So it might be better to say something like cinaede/pathice. He's talking to the faggot giving him a command, and so for direct address, it needs to be vocative.
Don't you mean they should be in the imperative?
It would depend on exactly what his original english thought was. I'm just sorta assuming that he wants to say something like "come and take it, faggots".
Well, if that's what he wants, you can't go wrong with a little Greek: ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ, ΕΥΡΥΠΡΩΚΤΟΙ! ... which arguably is better inasmuch as the head of the phrase is widely recognized even by people who don't speak Greek.
Google translate is very bad at latin. The cases and word order fuck it up pretty bad. GPT can be good at it somewhat, but it probably would have guardrails if you're trying to translate rude english into latin. It doesn't have much trouble going the other way, though, since authentic latin authors most certainly did use sexual terms of abuse.
I wouldn't trust GPT either. Run everything past a copy of Wheelock's latin, honestly.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole