![\"\"\/](\"https:\/\/thenationalpulse.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/Starmer-Police-3-e1760716208818-830x415.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nBy Christopher Tomlinson <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n PULSE POINTS<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2753WHAT HAPPENED:<\/strong> The British communications regulator, Ofcom, is insisting that the U.S. Constitution does not protect Americans from British censorship laws it is seeking to apply to American citizens and companies online.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udc64WHO WAS INVOLVED:<\/strong> Ofcom, the 4chan imageboard, lawyer Preston Byrne, and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer\u2019s government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83d\udcacKEY QUOTE:<\/strong> \u201cEvery threat and penalty\u2014including threats of multi-year prison terms\u2014contained in these letters pertains to speech and conduct which is constitutionally protected in the United States,\u201d said Preston Byrne, representing 4chan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \ud83c\udfafIMPACT:<\/strong> Ofcom\u2019s arguments directly contradict assurances from Prime Minister Starmer that the draconian Online Safety Act would not affect American Internet users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n IN FULL<\/p>\n\n\n\n Britain\u2019s communications regulator, Ofcom<\/a>, has asserted that the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment<\/a>, does not prevent it from imposing sanctions under the draconian Online Safety Act<\/a>, even against U.S.-based companies. This assertion comes amid a growing legal dispute with the 4chan imageboard, which has refused to comply with information requests issued by Ofcom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ofcom recently fined 4chan \u00a320,000 ($26.7k) for failing to respond to its statutory notices and warned of further daily penalties. The regulator argues that the Online Safety Act, which came into force earlier this year, applies to any online platform accessible in the United Kingdom, regardless of where it is based. In its correspondence with 4chan, Ofcom stated that the platform\u2019s claims of constitutional<\/a> protections, especially under the First Amendment, were not relevant, and that it can apply its enforcement powers internationally regardless of U.S. law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Online Safety Act gives Ofcom broad authority to compel companies to monitor and remove supposedly harmful online content. Critics, including civil liberties advocates and U.S. lawmakers, have warned that the law imposes sweeping censorship<\/a> obligations, going well beyond child pornography and other obviously criminal content. For instance, parliamentary debates on Muslim grooming gangs<\/a> have already been taken down to satisfy its requirements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In response to Ofcom\u2019s actions, 4chan and Kiwi Farms, another U.S.-based platform, filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to block the British regulator\u2019s demands. The lawsuit argues that the Online Safety Act, as applied to American companies and speech, violates the First Amendment and attempts to impose British law extraterritorially. Legal counsel for the platforms has said the enforcement notices are void and unenforceable in the United States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cEvery threat and penalty\u2014including threats of multi-year prison terms\u2014contained in these letters pertains to speech and conduct which is constitutionally protected in the United States,\u201d 4chan\u2019s lawyer Preston Byrne argued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer\u2019s government has defended the law<\/a>, describing it as a necessary measure to protect children and users from online harm. Starmer also previously insisted that the legislation is not intended to censor Americans\u2014claiming<\/a>, \u201cWe wouldn\u2019t want to reach across U.S. citizens, and we don\u2019t, and that\u2019s absolutely right\u201d\u2014but Ofcom\u2019s actions against 4chan suggest this was untrue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A federal court has yet to rule on whether Ofcom\u2019s orders can be enforced or recognized under U.S. law. In the meantime, Ofcom has stated it will continue to pursue penalties and reserves the right to escalate enforcement, including blocking access to noncompliant sites.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A key legal stance of 4chan is \u2014 paraphrased by Ofcom \u2014 \u201cOfcom has no power to enforce UK laws in the US.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Simple, right?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The UK Ofcom has officially stated that, \u201cWe do not accept this point.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s right. According to UK Ofcom, they feel that they have the power to enforce\u2026 pic.twitter.com\/hL5laZxjaa<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2014 The Lunduke Journal (@LundukeJournal) October 17, 2025<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n\n