Ironweed
Nauseated.
- Nov 9, 2019
- 328
The Ofcom Files, Part 2: IP Blocking the UK is Not Enough to Comply with the Online Safety Act
A follow up to The Ofcom Files. Some notes on Ofcom’s strategy to date. As many of you know, I represent the U.S. website 4chan, pro bono, in its U.S. federal lawsuit against the UK…
prestonbyrne.com
I'm not sure posting the full text of the blog is allowed, so I'll just drop a couple of snippets. But the whole thing at the link is worth reading. Main thrust of the article is that geoblocking/IP blocking is no longer good enough, and the UK is coming for this place anyway.
And indeed, I am currently representing every single U.S. social-media enforcement target of the UK Online Safety Act, again pro bono, without exception. I will continue to do so until the Online Safety Act's capacity to harm American citizens is destroyed, by America enacting a shield law.
This means, necessarily, taking on some of the most controversial sites on the web as one's clients. One such client, a social media forum called "Sanctioned Suicide" or "SaSu," has long been a target for Ofcom's ire because of the subject matter that the site hosts – principally, it is a mental health webforum where suicidal people are allowed to discuss the most taboo subject of all taboo subjects, suicide itself, and how they plan to go about it.
What seems clear to me is that Ofcom needs a scalp to present to Ofcom's political masters. It's been decided that SaSu is it. SaSu is, arguably, the most important scapegoat that was used to justify the Online Safety Act. Web censorship advocates like the Molly Rose Foundation – one of the major NGO sponsors of the Online Safety Act – seemingly exist for the sole purpose of advocating for increasingly insane levels of censorship of the Internet for everyone in the UK, always pointing to a single target as the justification, and never calling for any solution other than mass censorship of the entire country.