UK Online Safety Act: Difference between revisions
m →Use Their ID: name the website rather than say "this" |
→The impact: new section for 4chan |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
===Wikipedia=== | ===Wikipedia=== | ||
The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref> | The [[Wikimedia Foundation]] (WMF) sued the United Kingdom to prevent them from forcing age checks on their websites. The WMF made a statement that being forced to comply with this act would compromise the privacy of its editors and the neutrality of the encyclopedia. On August 11, 2025, the London High Court denied the WMF's reasoning, but didn't necessarily force age checks for the website.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Castro |first=Chiara |date=August 12, 2025 |title=Case dismissed – Wikipedia loses UK Online Safety Act legal challenge, but it may still be safe from age checks |url=https://www.techradar.com/vpn/vpn-privacy-security/case-dismissed-wikipedia-loses-uk-online-safety-act-legal-challenge-but-it-may-still-be-safe-from-age-checks}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=11 August 2025 |title=Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations |url=https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/08/11/wikimedia-foundation-challenges-uk-online-safety-act-regulations/}}</ref> | ||
=== 4Chan === | |||
[[4chan]] is a simple image-based bulletin board where anyone can post comments and share images | |||
==== Ofcom's investigation ==== | |||
On 14 April 2025, [[OFCOM|Ofcom]] issued a formal information notice to the provider of the service [[4chan]] requesting a copy of the record of its Illegal Content Risk Assessment, as part of our [https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/enforcement-programme-to-monitor-if-services-meet-their-illegal-content-risk-assessment-and-record-keeping-duties-under-the-online-safety-act-2023 Risk Assessment Enforcement Programme]. At the date of opening this investigation, no response has been received to the information notice. <ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-13 |title=Investigation into 4chan and its compliance with duties to protect its users from illegal content |url=https://www.ofcom.org.uk/online-safety/illegal-and-harmful-content/investigation-into-4chan-and-its-compliance-with-duties-to-protect-its-users-from-illegal-content |archive-date=2025-06-15 |access-date=2025-08-18 |website=Ofcom}}</ref> | |||
On 10 June 2025 Ofcom opened an investigation into "the online discussion board" 4chan. The investigation will consider 4chan's compliance with its duties under the Online Safety Act 2023. Ofcom has powers under [https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2023/50#section-102-8 section 102(8)] of the Act to require persons to respond to an information notice in the manner and form specified. | |||
On 13 August 2025, Ofcom, in accordance with section 130 of the Online Safety Act 2023, issued 4chan Community Support LLC with a provisional notice of contravention, believing they had reasonable grounds for believing 4chan has contravened its duties under section 102(8) of the Act to comply (Ofcom.org appears to have blocked Archive.org from this and other pages sometime in July 2025). | |||
==== 4chan's response ==== | |||
Attorneys Preston Byrne and Ron Coleman, acting for 4chan, responded publicly to Ofcom’s provisional notice, which accuses the American company of failing to meet information notice requirements and possibly breaching duties related to content moderation. | |||
The attorneys described the UK’s actions as an “illegal campaign of harassment” targeting American tech firms and warned that this extraterritorial enforcement of censorship law was incompatible with the First Amendment.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Harper |first=Cindy |date=2025-08-18 |title=4chan Lawyers Fire Back as UK Tries to Censor from Across the Pond |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-lawyers-defend-4chan-against-uk-online-safety-act-enforcement |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Net}}</ref> | |||
Since enforcement began, the UK’s media regulator Ofcom has reportedly sent formal notices to several US tech companies, instructing them to comply or face penalties. These letters have ignited backlash among American lawmakers, many of whom argue that Britain has crossed a line by trying to dictate speech rules to American businesses and citizens. House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, along with other members of Congress, has taken his concerns directly to British ministers, raising objections with Science Secretary Peter Kyle.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Frieth |first=Dan |date=2025-07-31 |title=The White House Puts UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on Notice Over UK’s Dangerous Online Censorship Laws |url=https://reclaimthenet.org/us-uk-clash-over-online-safety-act-free-speech |access-date=2025-08-18 |work=Reclaim the Internet}}</ref> | |||
==Consumer response== | ==Consumer response== |