Kick Online Entertainment appears to be based out of Australia so I guess the fine is applicable.
4chan however is based out of California used to be in Texas AFAIK and California has not yet passed these age verification laws but the writing is on the wall. California hosts roughly 60% of porn sites in the US. At least 25 states have passed them [1] and it's just a matter of time before there is a federal law. Had 4chan not left Texas they would be affected.
According to TFA, the company is identified as a SA; this could be an identifier for a société anonyme (SA) (in French) or sociedad anónima (SA) (in Spanish), which is the equivalent of a share corporation. The acronym is also valid for many other languages and this SA identifier applies to many countries within the European Economic Area; but not in Australia. If this is the case, then the fine could have real teeth even after BRexit.
It is based on the idea that free speech is an unalienable right. The framing matters, and it is why the first amendment's protection of free speech holds up so well in court.
The US government cannot assist in levying or enforcing these fines in any way.
‘no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.’
...and only US govt. power. UK is outside US, right?
That's not the only thing confusing this US lawyer.
"America will not tolerate Ofcom's behaviour for much longer... Every time they send one of their unenforceable enforcement notices into our country, it adds fuel and urgency to law reform efforts here in the United States," Byrne added.
So urgent law reform to counter unenforceable enforcement notices. Law makers surely have better things on which to waste their time.
Legal reform is needed to prevent American companies from complying with foreign censorship laws.
What happens if a tech company decides to follow EU law worldwide, just because it's more convenient than blocking some stuff just in the EU? That shouldn't be allowed.
What I meant was it doesn't matter if they don't voluntarily eventually they'll just be locked out of the market and their staff issued with arrest warrants should they set foot in the UK. It's not just a debt, it's a crime.
Fining people and corporations as a way to project power is being overused in the EU and the UK.
As most people have once been fined unfairly they will empathize with any target.
The real problem is when the first one says "I'm not paying", then you have to seize bank accounts or project physical force.
But it get dangerous when enough people do not have much on their bank account and are getting really angry.
Isn't this the exact same thing as Russia fining Google $20 decillion and then nothing happened? What's the difference?
Yeah it's quite absurd.
The only reason any business is going along with it is they want access to people's ID.
I wonder why the UK hasn't just completed the trick and implemented a firewall like China, Iran or North Korea?
Kick Online Entertainment appears to be based out of Australia so I guess the fine is applicable.
4chan however is based out of California used to be in Texas AFAIK and California has not yet passed these age verification laws but the writing is on the wall. California hosts roughly 60% of porn sites in the US. At least 25 states have passed them [1] and it's just a matter of time before there is a federal law. Had 4chan not left Texas they would be affected.
[1] - https://avpassociation.com/4271-2/
According to TFA, the company is identified as a SA; this could be an identifier for a société anonyme (SA) (in French) or sociedad anónima (SA) (in Spanish), which is the equivalent of a share corporation. The acronym is also valid for many other languages and this SA identifier applies to many countries within the European Economic Area; but not in Australia. If this is the case, then the fine could have real teeth even after BRexit.
It's not for Kick.com but a porn site called motherCENSORED.com.
The full uncensored site name found in this PDF: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/48590/document...
> The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects free speech.
No it doesn't. It places a restriction on government power. Which is a distinction that matters.
It's a negative liberty, not a positive entitlement.
It's one of the most widely misunderstood aspects of US constitutional law.
It is based on the idea that free speech is an unalienable right. The framing matters, and it is why the first amendment's protection of free speech holds up so well in court.
The US government cannot assist in levying or enforcing these fines in any way.
‘no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.’
> It places a restriction on government power.
...and only US govt. power. UK is outside US, right?
That's not the only thing confusing this US lawyer.
"America will not tolerate Ofcom's behaviour for much longer... Every time they send one of their unenforceable enforcement notices into our country, it adds fuel and urgency to law reform efforts here in the United States," Byrne added.
So urgent law reform to counter unenforceable enforcement notices. Law makers surely have better things on which to waste their time.
Legal reform is needed to prevent American companies from complying with foreign censorship laws.
What happens if a tech company decides to follow EU law worldwide, just because it's more convenient than blocking some stuff just in the EU? That shouldn't be allowed.
> Legal reform is needed to prevent American companies from complying with foreign censorship laws.
I cannot imagine why any US American company would comply with an unenforceable foriegn enforcement notice.
because they want to keep foreign paying customers not just domestic
An unenforcable enforcement notice won't lose them customers.
Tell that to rt.com or ThePirateBay or Sci-Hub
none of which are accessible directly from the UK.
and rt.com is super secret blocked
> Tell that to rt.com or ThePirateBay or Sci-Hub > none of which are accessible directly from the UK.
Not due any *unenforcable" enforcement notice, right?
Anyway, SciHub.org is accessible directly from UK on both ISPs where I am.
Oh right, Sci-Hub has changed, I didn't know.
What I meant was it doesn't matter if they don't voluntarily eventually they'll just be locked out of the market and their staff issued with arrest warrants should they set foot in the UK. It's not just a debt, it's a crime.
Fining people and corporations as a way to project power is being overused in the EU and the UK.
As most people have once been fined unfairly they will empathize with any target.
The real problem is when the first one says "I'm not paying", then you have to seize bank accounts or project physical force. But it get dangerous when enough people do not have much on their bank account and are getting really angry.
[flagged]