4CHAN COMMUNITY SUPPORT LLC and LOLCOW, LLC, d/b/a KIWI FARMS, Plaintiffs, v. THE UK OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS, a/k/a OFCOM

[mindlessobserver]

So acutely yes? If you can be fined, threatened, and commanded to redress them only in their courts; it kinda sounds like they are assuming subjection over you.

Yes, but the complications are in the definitions. OFCOM says that because a Briton, in Britain, can fire up their computer, also in Britain, via ISP, in Britain, and access the Kiwifarms, therefore, the Kiwifarms is in Britain. So British jurisdiction applies.

The kiwifarms argument is that because the Kiwifarms is incorporated in America, all its servers are in America, and all its principle officers are in America it is not the Kiwifarms going to the Britons in Britain. Its the Britons coming to the Kiwifarms in America.

It makes logical sense depending on what side of the knife you are.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

It makes logical sense depending on what side of the knife you are.

The most obvious outcome will be that ofcom has no jurisdiction over a foreign company and that they can only censor things in the country. They won't have the ability to force kf or any foreign entity into compliance but they can force domestic entities to block them. I don't see how even the most retarded of judges in america will rule that a company must comply with foreign laws simply just because they happen to be acessible in that country. What next we're going to start suing americans for using red40 in domestically produced food just because I can import it if I want?

 

[DavidS877]

I wonder how this happened in the good old days. You live in the UK and call a US company and order some item that's illegal in the UK, like a butter knife, and they ship it to you. Obviously that company has no UK nexus they were just using telecommunications to receive orders and a courier company to send the items. Is the US based company on the hook for not complying with UK law?

 

[Billy Beeple]

I wonder how this happened in the good old days. You live in the UK and call a US company and order some item that's illegal in the UK, like a butter knife, and they ship it to you. Obviously that company has no UK nexus they were just using telecommunications to receive orders and a courier company to send the items. Is the US based company on the hook for not complying with UK law?

In your example, the presumption is that the knife gets seized by customs.

The internet equivalent would be each country maintaining a Great Firewall, i.e. ordering ISPs to block "illegal" websites at the border. Which some countries definitely do.

OFCOM is arguing that VPNs are like smugglers. In that regard, I'm actually kinda surprised they haven't tried to make an example out of a VPN company with some sort of U.K. nexus.

 

[mindlessobserver]

I wonder how this happened in the good old days. You live in the UK and call a US company and order some item that's illegal in the UK, like a butter knife, and they ship it to you. Obviously that company has no UK nexus they were just using telecommunications to receive orders and a courier company to send the items. Is the US based company on the hook for not complying with UK law?

They could be depending on how frequent and how illegal the materials are, and how active they are with getting British people to buy illegal butter knives. Drug cartels being the obvious thing here. The key difference here though is the Drug operations is (ostensibly) illegal in both countries. Both in Mexico or Colombia, or wherever, and in the USA. The situation gets muddy when material is perfectly legal in one country and illegal in the other.

 

[Napoleon III]

Yes, but the complications are in the definitions. OFCOM says that because a Briton, in Britain, can fire up their computer, also in Britain, via ISP, in Britain, and access the Kiwifarms, therefore, the Kiwifarms is in Britain. So British jurisdiction applies.

This is actually completely and utterly insane from an administrative perspective. Like how to fuck do you even administer like 190 or so separate countries policies on what you can post on the internet. Its just so retarded. The UK is obviously flailing around trying to censor everything. And if Elon Musk wasn't retarded they would almost certainly fail.

 

[oh no its pipkun]

No he couldn't. He quite literally does not have that power. Once again we do not live in a monarchy. The king is not a monarch. He is not the most powerful person in this country. He does not have the power to create laws or veto anything he wants. The king is nothing more than a formality and a cultural relic. Quite literally my vote has more of an impact than the king does.

Sure he could mass an army and forcibly take back control of the country. In the same way that trump could just nuke the entire middle east and india.

as the pm told the king, "don't be surprised if we abolished you".

So you admit then that your situation is your fault and you chose this, and you, as a Briton, deserve to suffer under the yoke of a government you deserve. Not ALL people get to choose their government. But ALL people have the government they deserve.

the brits have to beg the parliment for referendums; even if a majority of the government (the party(ies) with the majorirty of parlimentary seats) want a referendum on something, the party doesn't have to hold one and governmenrs certainly aren't going to entertain them after cameron's failed brexit gamble. then came theresa may and her sabatoge of brexit. as for 3rd parties farage is eager to fuck over reform on some petty bullshit like he did with ukip. i read restore won some local elections but nothing parlimentary. the point is the limeys gave up a monarchy for the bureaucracy and absolutely deserve everything that happens to them.

OFCOM is arguing that VPNs are like smugglers. In that regard, I'm actually kinda surprised they haven't tried to make an example out of a VPN company with some sort of U.K. nexus.

bbc tele dectection vans come to mind.

 

[WelperHelper99]

This is actually completely and utterly insane from an administrative perspective. Like how to fuck do you even administer like 190 or so separate countries policies on what you can post on the internet. Its just so retarded. The UK is obviously flailing around trying to censor everything. And if Elon Musk wasn't retarded they would almost certainly fail.

You need a military, or some other form of control, like financial institutions. They think they are still the empire when their last monarch saw to the destruction of that instead of staying the course and keeping control.

 

[mindlessobserver]

You need a military, or some other form of control, like financial institutions. They think they are still the empire when their last monarch saw to the destruction of that instead of staying the course and keeping control.

Realistically, Britain could not have maintained the Empire. The mistake was in keeping all the imperial institutions, importing foreign subjects and building a bloated social safety net. Only a dyed in the wool communist like Clement Atlee could have honestly believed a bankrupt nation could offer free healthcare to everyone.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Realistically, Britain could not have maintained the Empire. The mistake was in keeping all the imperial institutions, importing foreign subjects and building a bloated social safety net. Only a dyed in the wool communist like Clement Atlee could have honestly believed a bankrupt nation could offer free healthcare to everyone.

They had the ships and troops, not to mention emerging technologies like the jet engine. They absolutely could have. Bad governments and poor royal oversight ensured they did not.

 

[mindlessobserver]

They had the ships and troops, not to mention emerging technologies like the jet engine. They absolutely could have. Bad governments and poor royal oversight ensured they did not.

Not in an era of nationalism. The Suez crisis was the watershed moment on this. Especially since the USA made it abundantly clear it was not interested in helping the UK keep its Empire and in many respects actively worked against it. It was a losing proposition. They would have careened from fighting one fire to fighting another with no net benefit or profit. Now, they probably could have held onto their smaller holdings like in the Caribbean, Hong Kong and Singapore if they had the will.

 

[AnOminous]

Hey UK, you are an island filled with fucking fairies. You want to fight us again? Bring it you fucking queers! I believe we beat the fucking shit out of you last time. You want to bring it again? DO IT.

 

[DragoonSierra]

No. This question is; "If people in Britain subject to British law can access materials in America, does the fact that these people in Britain have access mean the US based company is liable for providing illegal content to Britons?" Then layered on top is the jurisdiction question. OFCOM argued that if the Kiwifarms has an issue, they are free to appear in a crown court about the illegal content they are providing to people in the UK, or any other issues they have with their compliance towards UK law as it pertains to the forums UK users. The Kiwifarms argues however that as an entirely American entity the UK must avail themselves of the Federal Courts in the USA and send service and process via the Hague Convention, which was not done. The demands were simply transmitted via email.

So its a question of sovereign borders and international treaty law around service and process. Which is very complicated. Its also a novel question, because American corporations like X, as was noted earlier, maintain brick and mortar offices and employees in the UK. So they can't argue in good faith to being purely American in nature. Which means this is the first time this issue has ever been litigated, and that makes it harder for the judge because he can't just lean on a precedent to make this easy.

This makes me ask this question again. Who is paying Preston Byrne?

You need a military, or some other form of control, like financial institutions. They think they are still the empire when their last monarch saw to the destruction of that instead of staying the course and keeping control.

They can potentially bully financial institutions into doing something to Josh and there would be little he can do if that happens.

 

[mindlessobserver]

This makes me ask this question again. Who is paying Preston Byrne?

Byrne is ostensibly doing this pro boner. The more likely scenario from my reading between the lines is Preston is working for, if not directly then most definitely at the encouragement of Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Jordan in particular has had a bee in his bonnet about the "absolute state" of the United Kingdom and has brought in several British dissidents to testify to the Judiciary Committee about the UK's increasing censorship of the internet, both internally on its own citizens and externally onto American citizens and corporations.

This is just me "guessing" but I am pretty confident in my assessment. More broadly I think this approach is the best way to do it politically. Jordan has enough to deal with publicly without tilting at the British Windmills. Slipping a knife under the table via a shit posting forum to get what you want is far better from a political standpoint because there is plausible deniability. Are you suggesting the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives is in league with a tranny murder forum?! You had better have some pretty big proof about everything in that phrase mister or you will find out how deep the Anacostia River is. The shit posting forum in question also has a cause of action unlike a congressman. So there is a confluence of interest.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Byrne is ostensibly doing this pro boner. The more likely scenario from my reading between the lines is Preston is working for, if not directly then most definitely at the encouragement of Jim Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Jordan in particular has had a bee in his bonnet about the "absolute state" of the United Kingdom and has brought in several British dissidents to testify to the Judiciary Committee about the UK's increasing censorship of the internet, both internally on its own citizens and externally onto American citizens and corporations.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=EMJbUNT4-Jk
This is just me "guessing" but I am pretty confident in my assessment. More broadly I think this approach is the best way to do it politically. Jordan has enough to deal with publicly without tilting at the British Windmills. Slipping a knife under the table via a shit posting forum to get what you want is far better from a political standpoint because there is plausible deniability. The shit posting forum in question also has a cause of action unlike a congressman. So there is a confluence of interest.

I think it is best to not dwell on where the money floweth, only that it does and we are getting a top tier service for free. Also:

pro boner

Pro bono. Lmao

 

[mindlessobserver]

I think it is best to not dwell on where the money floweth, only that it does and we are getting a top tier service for free. Also:

Pro bono. Lmao

Pro Boner. I'm just joking. Everything I just said was a joke.

 

[Vesperus]

Byrne is ostensibly doing this pro boner.

*notices your filing*
OωO

 

[mindlessobserver]

They can potentially bully financial institutions into doing something to Josh and there would be little he can do if that happens.

Actually they can't, thanks to the two loop holes Josh has found. The first loop hole is West Virginia allowing the State itself to be your registered corporate agent. A very unique situation even I was unaware of. Its not really something West Virginia advertises but holy shit if it is not a massive power buff. Because it means your corporation can be represented by THE STATE. Which means constitutional provisions are in play. The State can't drop you because they are getting angry DM's on twitter. The State must follow its own legal process. In the era of Social Media, I think West Virginia should start advertising this. Its huge, and makes them unique even from corporate hell hole states like Delaware. Null himself has stated he happily pays the State taxes to West Virginia for this service.

The other buff is Null discovering the Check Pay system, which was set up in the 19th century after the invention of the Telegraph. This system was immediately subject to intense State and Federal regulation in order to counteract fraud. We cannot have false signals sent from New York to San Francisco saying Mister X has just transferred 500 dollars to Mister Y, when in fact Mister Y had paid Mister Z 200 dollars to send the signal in New York to deposit 500 dollars from Mister X's account into Mister Y's account.

There are STRICT regulatory rules and government oversight on the billpay network. Which incidentally is why the Banks try and pretend it doesn't exist. Ironically, they can't get rid of it, because part being a Bank in the United States requires that you have this process available to your depositors. We are talking some vestigial laws here that go back a century and exist by the same tradition that says Legislatures have to have a mace as their ceremonial weapon and not a sword. They CAN'T get rid of it, and the only way they can deny a legally incorporated entity access to it is a court order. But since Lolcow LLC is a legal entity, in West Virginia, the Banks cannot stop the signal. Because stopping the signal is as illegal as a fraudulent signal under the Bank Secrecy Act, which was an amendment to the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, which was an overhaul to the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933.

 

[AnOminous]

Elon Musk is a cuck, a cocksucker, and a faggot.

Grow a pair of balls.