The UK government’s communications regulator Ofcom is facing backlash and a federal lawsuit after asserting that the U.S. Constitution does not protect American citizens from its online censorship laws.
Under the United Kingdom’s sweeping Online Safety Act, Ofcom has been sending enforcement letters to small U.S. platforms, including 4chan and Kiwi Farms.
Ofcom is demanding compliance with British speech regulations and threatening heavy fines for noncompliance.
But the move has triggered what one U.S. attorney calls a “constitutional ambush.”
Preston Byrne, an attorney representing 4chan, Kiwi Farms, and two other American companies, said the regulator’s actions were “frankly asinine.”
“My clients are entirely American,” Byrne said.
“All of their operations are American.
“All of their infrastructure is American, and they have no connection to the UK whatsoever.”
Despite that, Ofcom reportedly threatened the companies with “a £20,000 fine plus £100 daily penalties for 60 days thereafter.”
Byrne responded by filing a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C., challenging Ofcom’s jurisdiction and accusing it of attempting to export censorship into the United States.
“We Don’t Care What the UK Thinks”
Byrne said the lawsuit was designed to make three points:
- To demonstrate that U.S. companies are prepared to fight back against foreign censorship regimes.
- To assert his clients’ rights in front of a U.S. federal judge.
- To provoke Ofcom into “doing something stupid,” which he said it promptly did.
After the filing, Byrne said Ofcom sent “a 40-page letter of tremendous length, which is deeply unserious.”
According to Byrne, Ofcom’s response included an explicit admission that it does not “think U.S. law applies on U.S. soil” and intends to rely on sovereign immunity.
It’s a position Byrne called self-defeating.
“This rather undermines the British government’s assertions that it’s made time and again, including to the President, to his face, that the British government is not using its sovereign power to censor American citizens,” Byrne said.
In an official notice sent to 4chan, Ofcom made its position clear:
“We also note 4chan’s claim that it is protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
“However, the First Amendment binds only the US government and not overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not affect Ofcom’s powers to enforce the Act in this case.”
A Legal Contradiction in Writing
That statement, intended to justify Ofcom’s enforcement, may have undercut its entire legal case.
By asserting that the First Amendment “binds only the U.S. government,” Ofcom admits it stands entirely outside the U.S. constitutional order, yet it simultaneously claims the right to enforce British speech law against U.S.-based companies operating solely on American soil.
If Ofcom claims the U.S. Constitution doesn’t apply to its actions, legal experts say, then neither does the UK’s Online Safety Act, which has no authority beyond Britain’s borders.
Ofcom’s position effectively amounts to asserting foreign jurisdiction inside the United States, something American courts are unlikely to recognize.
“Ultimately, from a global free speech resistance standpoint, and this is something that I think Ofcom really doesn’t understand,” Byrne said.
“We don’t care what the UK thinks in the United States…
“And our objective is really to demonstrate the toothlessness of these global regimes in the United States, where most of the Internet is based.”
U.S. Lawmakers Join the Fight
Byrne said his team has reached out to the White House, both houses of Congress, and several lawmakers are now exploring legislation to block foreign censorship enforcement on U.S. soil.
“I’m advised that there are a number of senators in Congress and representatives in Congress who are looking at introducing a bill to put a stop to this,” he said.
Byrne added that he is also backing a New Hampshire state law that would create a $1 million penalty per occurrence against any foreign regulator that tries to enforce censorship inside the United States, along with a waiver of sovereign immunity in state courts.
Ofcom Defends Skipping Legal Channels
Ofcom, for its part, insists it does not need to use the U.S.–UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT).
MLAT is the formal process governments use to request evidence or cooperation across borders.
“There is no requirement in the Act for Ofcom to use the MLAT procedure to serve notices issued under the Act,” the regulator said in its notice.
“The MLAT procedure is not an appropriate method of service for administrative investigations, but reserved for obtaining assistance in the investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses.”
That reasoning has been widely criticized as an attempt to circumvent international law by treating enforcement demands as “administrative” rather than legal.
The plaintiffs argue that Ofcom’s approach amounts to “coercive extraterritorial power,” warning that if the regulator wants information from U.S. companies, it must go through the Department of Justice and the courts, not by “emailing a webmaster and demanding records under threat of criminal penalty.”
The Broader Pattern of Global Censorship
Ofcom’s move follows a growing trend of foreign governments bypassing U.S. legal channels to demand content takedowns and user data from American tech firms.
Brazil’s Supreme Court, led by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, has done the same.
The radical judge’s efforts have prompted the U.S. government to impose sanctions on Brazilian officials over censorship and human rights concerns.
X has publicly warned that such actions “set a dangerous precedent for extraterritorial censorship disguised as regulatory enforcement.”
Ofcom’s Overreach Exposed
Ofcom justifies its letters by claiming that any site with “links to the UK,” such as having British users, falls under its jurisdiction.
In one notice, Ofcom cited 4chan’s seven percent UK user base as evidence that it “targets” Britain.
Legal experts call that argument absurd.
Under such logic, any global website with British visitors could be forced to obey UK speech laws, including American news sites and forums.
In the end, Ofcom’s attempt to act as the world’s speech police may have backfired.
Its strategy, ignoring the U.S. Constitution, dismissing MLAT procedures, and issuing fines it cannot collect, has now become a test case in how far a foreign government can go before hitting the hard limits of American sovereignty.
As Byrne put it: “Our objective is really to demonstrate the toothlessness of these global regimes in the United States.”
READ MORE – Marco Rubio Announces Visa Restriction for Foreigners ‘Complicit in Censoring Americans’
Our comment section is restricted to members of the Slay News community only.
To join, create a free account HERE.
If you are already a member, log in HERE.