https://order-order.com/2025/10/13/ofcom-fines-4chan-20000-for-violating-online-safety-act/
Ofcom has whacked US-based 4chan with a œ20,000 fine for failing to respond to
the watchdog's request for its "illegal harms risk assessment" in compliance with the new Online Safety Act. The first fine of its kind since the Act was introduced.
The internet sheriff has told 4chan it will also start charging œ100 per day from tomorrow:
"The provider of 4chan has not responded to our request for
a copy of its illegal harms risk assessment, nor a second request
relating to its qualifying worldwide revenue. As a result, Ofcom
has fined 4chan œ20,000. We will also impose a daily penalty of
œ100 per day, starting from tomorrow, for either 60 days or
until 4chan provides us with this information, whichever is sooner."
Ofcom's Director of Enforcement Suzanne Cater today warned the fine "sends a clear message that anyone violating the act can expect the same treatment". Preston Byrne, a lawyer representing 4chan, said the company isn?t taking this
lying down:
"?4chan's constitutional rights remain completely unaffected
by this foreign e-mail. 4chan will obey UK censorship laws when
pigs fly. In the meantime, there's litigation pending in DC which
Ofcom hasn't yet answered. We'll see Ofcom in court."
The lawsuit, which 4chan filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, rejected Ofcom's demands. It stated that 4chan is an American company with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom and
stated that American businesses are protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ofcom responded that a United States District Court has no jurisdiction over a subdivision of the British government, citing
sovereign immunity.
In addition, in responding to 4chan's claim of protection under the 1st Amendment, Ofcom made the stunning claim that the 1st Amendment is irrelevant and that UK law supersedes U.S. law. Indeed, it would seem to be making the claim the UK law supersedes the laws of all nations worldwide and is supreme:
"We do not accept this point. (That American businesses
are protected by the 1st Amendment.) The Online Safety
Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate
online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this
expressly includes conducting investigations into, and
imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of
online services that qualify under the Act.
"The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial
effect, stating at section 204(1): 'References in this Act to
an internet service, a user-to-user service or a search service
include such a service provided from outside the United Kingdom.'
"It is clear, therefore, that providers of services based
outside the United Kingdom can have duties under the Act
and that Ofcom can enforce those duties using powers
provided to it in the Act. We also note 4chan's claim that it is
protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because
of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However the
1st Amendment binds only the U.S. government and not
overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not
affect Ofcom's power to enforce the Act in this case."
I'm not sure what Ofcom's lawyers are telling them, but perhaps they should enlist the services of an American law firm that specializes in Constitutional
law, because what they claim is absolutely full of shit.
American's do not lose their 1st Amendment rights merely because they put up a
website on the internet. Not only does the 1st Amendment protect their speech,
we also have a statute, passed by Congress about 15 years ago, that prohibits American courts from enforcing foreign judgments for speech that is protected by the 1st Amendment. So I have no idea how Ofcom plans on collecting its fines against 4chan.
It's also amusing that Ofcom thinks it can sue Americans, but that Americans can't sue them back by claiming sovereign immunity:
OFCOM: "You have no rights under US law; UK law is all that matters. However, we will run and hide behind the protections of US law if you challenge us."
For his part, 4chan's attorney tweeted:
In view of Ofcom not seeing sense after our last response,
which advised them about the futility of this effort under
US law, this time around I thanked Ofcom for providing
excellent bedding for my pet hamster.
Utterly unserious agency
On 2025-10-15 8:40 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
Wow, the sheer audacity of trying to punish Americans under British law given the protections Americans have under their own laws....
https://order-order.com/2025/10/13/ofcom-fines-4chan-20000-for-
violating-online-safety-act/
Ofcom has whacked US-based 4chan with a œ20,000 fine for failing to
respond to
the watchdog's request for its "illegal harms risk assessment" in
compliance
with the new Online Safety Act. The first fine of its kind since the
Act was
introduced.
The internet sheriff has told 4chan it will also start charging œ100
per day
from tomorrow:
ÿÿÿÿÿ "The provider of 4chan has not responded to our request for
ÿÿÿÿÿ a copy of its illegal harms risk assessment, nor a second request
ÿÿÿÿÿ relating to its qualifying worldwide revenue. As a result, Ofcom
ÿÿÿÿÿ has fined 4chan œ20,000. We will also impose a daily penalty of
ÿÿÿÿÿ œ100 per day, starting from tomorrow, for either 60 days or
ÿÿÿÿÿ until 4chan provides us with this information, whichever is
sooner."
Ofcom's Director of Enforcement Suzanne Cater today warned the fine
"sends a
clear message that anyone violating the act can expect the same
treatment".
Preston Byrne, a lawyer representing 4chan, said the company isn?t
taking this
lying down:
ÿÿÿÿÿ "?4chan's constitutional rights remain completely unaffected
ÿÿÿÿÿ by this foreign e-mail. 4chan will obey UK censorship laws when
ÿÿÿÿÿ pigs fly. In the meantime, there's litigation pending in DC which
ÿÿÿÿÿ Ofcom hasn't yet answered. We'll see Ofcom in court."
The lawsuit, which 4chan filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of
Columbia, rejected Ofcom's demands. It stated that 4chan is an American
company with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United
Kingdom and
stated that American businesses are protected by the 1st Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Ofcom responded that a United States District
Court has no jurisdiction over a subdivision of the British
government, citing
sovereign immunity.
In addition, in responding to 4chan's claim of protection under the 1st
Amendment, Ofcom made the stunning claim that the 1st Amendment is
irrelevant
and that UK law supersedes U.S. law. Indeed, it would seem to be
making the
claim the UK law supersedes the laws of all nations worldwide and is
supreme:
ÿÿÿÿÿ "We do not accept this point. (That American businesses
ÿÿÿÿÿ are protected by the 1st Amendment.) The Online Safety
ÿÿÿÿÿ Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate
ÿÿÿÿÿ online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this
ÿÿÿÿÿ expressly includes conducting investigations into, and
ÿÿÿÿÿ imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of
ÿÿÿÿÿ online services that qualify under the Act.
ÿÿÿÿÿ "The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial
ÿÿÿÿÿ effect, stating at section 204(1): 'References in this Act to
ÿÿÿÿÿ an internet service, a user-to-user service or a search service
ÿÿÿÿÿ include such a service provided from outside the United Kingdom.'
ÿÿÿÿÿ "It is clear, therefore, that providers of services based
ÿÿÿÿÿ outside the United Kingdom can have duties under the Act
ÿÿÿÿÿ and that Ofcom can enforce those duties using powers
ÿÿÿÿÿ provided to it in the Act. We also note 4chan's claim that it is
ÿÿÿÿÿ protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because
ÿÿÿÿÿ of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However the
ÿÿÿÿÿ 1st Amendment binds only the U.S. government and not
ÿÿÿÿÿ overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not
ÿÿÿÿÿ affect Ofcom's power to enforce the Act in this case."
I'm not sure what Ofcom's lawyers are telling them, but perhaps they
should
enlist the services of an American law firm that specializes in
Constitutional
law, because what they claim is absolutely full of shit.
American's do not lose their 1st Amendment rights merely because they
put up a
website on the internet. Not only does the 1st Amendment protect their
speech,
we also have a statute, passed by Congress about 15 years ago, that
prohibits
American courts from enforcing foreign judgments for speech that is
protected
by the 1st Amendment. So I have no idea how Ofcom plans on collecting its
fines against 4chan.
It's also amusing that Ofcom thinks it can sue Americans, but that
Americans
can't sue them back by claiming sovereign immunity:
OFCOM: "You have no rights under US law; UK law is all that matters.
However,
we will run and hide behind the protections of US law if you challenge
us."
For his part, 4chan's attorney tweeted:
ÿÿÿÿÿ In view of Ofcom not seeing sense after our last response,
ÿÿÿÿÿ which advised them about the futility of this effort under
ÿÿÿÿÿ US law, this time around I thanked Ofcom for providing
ÿÿÿÿÿ excellent bedding for my pet hamster.
ÿÿÿÿÿ Utterly unserious agency
https://order-order.com/2025/10/13/ofcom-fines-4chan-20000-for-violating-online-safety-act/
Ofcom has whacked US-based 4chan with a œ20,000 fine for failing to respond to
the watchdog's request for its "illegal harms risk assessment" in compliance with the new Online Safety Act. The first fine of its kind since the Act was introduced.
The internet sheriff has told 4chan it will also start charging œ100 per day from tomorrow:
"The provider of 4chan has not responded to our request for
a copy of its illegal harms risk assessment, nor a second request
relating to its qualifying worldwide revenue. As a result, Ofcom
has fined 4chan œ20,000. We will also impose a daily penalty of
œ100 per day, starting from tomorrow, for either 60 days or
until 4chan provides us with this information, whichever is sooner."
Ofcom's Director of Enforcement Suzanne Cater today warned the fine "sends a clear message that anyone violating the act can expect the same treatment". Preston Byrne, a lawyer representing 4chan, said the company isn?t taking this
lying down:
"?4chan's constitutional rights remain completely unaffected
by this foreign e-mail. 4chan will obey UK censorship laws when
pigs fly. In the meantime, there's litigation pending in DC which
Ofcom hasn't yet answered. We'll see Ofcom in court."
The lawsuit, which 4chan filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, rejected Ofcom's demands. It stated that 4chan is an American company with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom and
stated that American businesses are protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution. Ofcom responded that a United States District Court has no jurisdiction over a subdivision of the British government, citing
sovereign immunity.
In addition, in responding to 4chan's claim of protection under the 1st Amendment, Ofcom made the stunning claim that the 1st Amendment is irrelevant and that UK law supersedes U.S. law. Indeed, it would seem to be making the claim the UK law supersedes the laws of all nations worldwide and is supreme:
"We do not accept this point. (That American businesses
are protected by the 1st Amendment.) The Online Safety
Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate
online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this
expressly includes conducting investigations into, and
imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of
online services that qualify under the Act.
"The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial
effect, stating at section 204(1): 'References in this Act to
an internet service, a user-to-user service or a search service
include such a service provided from outside the United Kingdom.'
"It is clear, therefore, that providers of services based
outside the United Kingdom can have duties under the Act
and that Ofcom can enforce those duties using powers
provided to it in the Act. We also note 4chan's claim that it is
protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because
of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However the
1st Amendment binds only the U.S. government and not
overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not
affect Ofcom's power to enforce the Act in this case."
I'm not sure what Ofcom's lawyers are telling them, but perhaps they should enlist the services of an American law firm that specializes in Constitutional
law, because what they claim is absolutely full of shit.
American's do not lose their 1st Amendment rights merely because they put up a
website on the internet. Not only does the 1st Amendment protect their speech,
we also have a statute, passed by Congress about 15 years ago, that prohibits American courts from enforcing foreign judgments for speech that is protected by the 1st Amendment. So I have no idea how Ofcom plans on collecting its fines against 4chan.
It's also amusing that Ofcom thinks it can sue Americans, but that Americans can't sue them back by claiming sovereign immunity:
OFCOM: "You have no rights under US law; UK law is all that matters. However, we will run and hide behind the protections of US law if you challenge us."
For his part, 4chan's attorney tweeted:
In view of Ofcom not seeing sense after our last response,
which advised them about the futility of this effort under
US law, this time around I thanked Ofcom for providing
excellent bedding for my pet hamster.
Utterly unserious agency
On 2025-10-15 8:40 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
https://order-order.com/2025/10/13/ofcom-fines-4chan-20000-for-violating-online-safety-act/
Ofcom has whacked US-based 4chan with a œ20,000 fine for failing to respond to
the watchdog's request for its "illegal harms risk assessment" in compliance >> with the new Online Safety Act. The first fine of its kind since the Act was >> introduced.
The internet sheriff has told 4chan it will also start charging œ100 per day >> from tomorrow:
"The provider of 4chan has not responded to our request for
a copy of its illegal harms risk assessment, nor a second request
relating to its qualifying worldwide revenue. As a result, Ofcom
has fined 4chan œ20,000. We will also impose a daily penalty of
œ100 per day, starting from tomorrow, for either 60 days or
until 4chan provides us with this information, whichever is sooner."
Ofcom's Director of Enforcement Suzanne Cater today warned the fine "sends a >> clear message that anyone violating the act can expect the same treatment". >> Preston Byrne, a lawyer representing 4chan, said the company isn?t taking this
lying down:
"?4chan's constitutional rights remain completely unaffected
by this foreign e-mail. 4chan will obey UK censorship laws when
pigs fly. In the meantime, there's litigation pending in DC which
Ofcom hasn't yet answered. We'll see Ofcom in court."
The lawsuit, which 4chan filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, rejected Ofcom's demands. It stated that 4chan is an American
company with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom and
stated that American businesses are protected by the 1st Amendment to the
United States Constitution. Ofcom responded that a United States District
Court has no jurisdiction over a subdivision of the British government, citing
sovereign immunity.
In addition, in responding to 4chan's claim of protection under the 1st
Amendment, Ofcom made the stunning claim that the 1st Amendment is irrelevant
and that UK law supersedes U.S. law. Indeed, it would seem to be making the >> claim the UK law supersedes the laws of all nations worldwide and is supreme:
"We do not accept this point. (That American businesses
are protected by the 1st Amendment.) The Online Safety
Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate
online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this
expressly includes conducting investigations into, and
imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of
online services that qualify under the Act.
"The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial
effect, stating at section 204(1): 'References in this Act to
an internet service, a user-to-user service or a search service
include such a service provided from outside the United Kingdom.'
"It is clear, therefore, that providers of services based
outside the United Kingdom can have duties under the Act
and that Ofcom can enforce those duties using powers
provided to it in the Act. We also note 4chan's claim that it is
protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because
of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However the
1st Amendment binds only the U.S. government and not
overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not
affect Ofcom's power to enforce the Act in this case."
I'm not sure what Ofcom's lawyers are telling them, but perhaps they should >> enlist the services of an American law firm that specializes in Constitutional
law, because what they claim is absolutely full of shit.
American's do not lose their 1st Amendment rights merely because they put up a
website on the internet. Not only does the 1st Amendment protect their speech,
we also have a statute, passed by Congress about 15 years ago, that prohibits
American courts from enforcing foreign judgments for speech that is protected
by the 1st Amendment. So I have no idea how Ofcom plans on collecting its
fines against 4chan.
It's also amusing that Ofcom thinks it can sue Americans, but that Americans >> can't sue them back by claiming sovereign immunity:
OFCOM: "You have no rights under US law; UK law is all that matters. However,
we will run and hide behind the protections of US law if you challenge us." >>
For his part, 4chan's attorney tweeted:
In view of Ofcom not seeing sense after our last response,
which advised them about the futility of this effort under
US law, this time around I thanked Ofcom for providing
excellent bedding for my pet hamster.
Utterly unserious agency
I learned something interesting just now. I had always thought that
OFCOM's job was to regulate broadcasting and the Internet in the UK but
it seems they have a broader remit. They've apparently just fined the
Royal Mail 21 million pounds because they are failing to get a
sufficient percentage of mail delivered according to the Post Office's
own delivery targets. Apparently, the Post Office is NOT even fighting
that and agrees that letters and parcels are not being delivered in a sufficiently timely fashion. (They promise to hire more people and use
more efficient methods to improve their service.)
The fact that OFCOM apparently oversees the Post Office too makes me
wonder what else they oversee....
I learned something interesting just now. I had always thought that
OFCOM's job was to regulate broadcasting and the Internet in the UK but
it seems they have a broader remit. They've apparently just fined the
Royal Mail 21 million pounds because they are failing to get a
sufficient percentage of mail delivered according to the Post Office's
own delivery targets. Apparently, the Post Office is NOT even fighting
that and agrees that letters and parcels are not being delivered in a >sufficiently timely fashion. (They promise to hire more people and use
more efficient methods to improve their service.)
The fact that OFCOM apparently oversees the Post Office too makes me
wonder what else they oversee....
On 10/15/2025 8:51 PM, Rhino wrote:
On 2025-10-15 8:40 p.m., BTR1701 wrote:
Wow, the sheer audacity of trying to punish Americans under British law
https://order-order.com/2025/10/13/ofcom-fines-4chan-20000-for-
violating-online-safety-act/
Ofcom has whacked US-based 4chan with a œ20,000 fine for failing to
respond to
the watchdog's request for its "illegal harms risk assessment" in
compliance
with the new Online Safety Act. The first fine of its kind since the
Act was
introduced.
The internet sheriff has told 4chan it will also start charging œ100
per day
from tomorrow:
ÿÿÿÿÿ "The provider of 4chan has not responded to our request for
ÿÿÿÿÿ a copy of its illegal harms risk assessment, nor a second request
ÿÿÿÿÿ relating to its qualifying worldwide revenue. As a result, Ofcom
ÿÿÿÿÿ has fined 4chan œ20,000. We will also impose a daily penalty of
ÿÿÿÿÿ œ100 per day, starting from tomorrow, for either 60 days or
ÿÿÿÿÿ until 4chan provides us with this information, whichever is
sooner."
Ofcom's Director of Enforcement Suzanne Cater today warned the fine
"sends a
clear message that anyone violating the act can expect the same
treatment".
Preston Byrne, a lawyer representing 4chan, said the company isn?t
taking this
lying down:
ÿÿÿÿÿ "?4chan's constitutional rights remain completely unaffected
ÿÿÿÿÿ by this foreign e-mail. 4chan will obey UK censorship laws when
ÿÿÿÿÿ pigs fly. In the meantime, there's litigation pending in DC which
ÿÿÿÿÿ Ofcom hasn't yet answered. We'll see Ofcom in court."
The lawsuit, which 4chan filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of
Columbia, rejected Ofcom's demands. It stated that 4chan is an American
company with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United
Kingdom and
stated that American businesses are protected by the 1st Amendment to the >>> United States Constitution. Ofcom responded that a United States District >>> Court has no jurisdiction over a subdivision of the British
government, citing
sovereign immunity.
In addition, in responding to 4chan's claim of protection under the 1st
Amendment, Ofcom made the stunning claim that the 1st Amendment is
irrelevant
and that UK law supersedes U.S. law. Indeed, it would seem to be
making the
claim the UK law supersedes the laws of all nations worldwide and is
supreme:
ÿÿÿÿÿ "We do not accept this point. (That American businesses
ÿÿÿÿÿ are protected by the 1st Amendment.) The Online Safety
ÿÿÿÿÿ Act explicitly grants Ofcom the legal authority to regulate
ÿÿÿÿÿ online safety for individuals in the United Kingdom, and this
ÿÿÿÿÿ expressly includes conducting investigations into, and
ÿÿÿÿÿ imposing penalties for, non-compliance by providers of
ÿÿÿÿÿ online services that qualify under the Act.
ÿÿÿÿÿ "The Act expressly anticipates that it will have extra-territorial >>> ÿÿÿÿÿ effect, stating at section 204(1): 'References in this Act to
ÿÿÿÿÿ an internet service, a user-to-user service or a search service
ÿÿÿÿÿ include such a service provided from outside the United Kingdom.'
ÿÿÿÿÿ "It is clear, therefore, that providers of services based
ÿÿÿÿÿ outside the United Kingdom can have duties under the Act
ÿÿÿÿÿ and that Ofcom can enforce those duties using powers
ÿÿÿÿÿ provided to it in the Act. We also note 4chan's claim that it is
ÿÿÿÿÿ protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because
ÿÿÿÿÿ of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However the
ÿÿÿÿÿ 1st Amendment binds only the U.S. government and not
ÿÿÿÿÿ overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not
ÿÿÿÿÿ affect Ofcom's power to enforce the Act in this case."
I'm not sure what Ofcom's lawyers are telling them, but perhaps they
should
enlist the services of an American law firm that specializes in
Constitutional
law, because what they claim is absolutely full of shit.
American's do not lose their 1st Amendment rights merely because they
put up a
website on the internet. Not only does the 1st Amendment protect their
speech,
we also have a statute, passed by Congress about 15 years ago, that
prohibits
American courts from enforcing foreign judgments for speech that is
protected
by the 1st Amendment. So I have no idea how Ofcom plans on collecting its >>> fines against 4chan.
It's also amusing that Ofcom thinks it can sue Americans, but that
Americans
can't sue them back by claiming sovereign immunity:
OFCOM: "You have no rights under US law; UK law is all that matters.
However,
we will run and hide behind the protections of US law if you challenge
us."
For his part, 4chan's attorney tweeted:
ÿÿÿÿÿ In view of Ofcom not seeing sense after our last response,
ÿÿÿÿÿ which advised them about the futility of this effort under
ÿÿÿÿÿ US law, this time around I thanked Ofcom for providing
ÿÿÿÿÿ excellent bedding for my pet hamster.
ÿÿÿÿÿ Utterly unserious agency
given the protections Americans have under their own laws....
The Brits claim it's to defeat kiddie porn, which is beginning to
acquire 'Godwin's Law' stature in its ability to shame and silence open opposition. This could be a Skokie moment.
In <10cpom3$4efm$1@dont-email.me> Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> writes:
[snip]
I learned something interesting just now. I had always thought that
OFCOM's job was to regulate broadcasting and the Internet in the UK but
it seems they have a broader remit. They've apparently just fined the
Royal Mail 21 million pounds because they are failing to get a
sufficient percentage of mail delivered according to the Post Office's
own delivery targets. Apparently, the Post Office is NOT even fighting
that and agrees that letters and parcels are not being delivered in a
sufficiently timely fashion. (They promise to hire more people and use
more efficient methods to improve their service.)
The fact that OFCOM apparently oversees the Post Office too makes me
wonder what else they oversee....
Just wait until you look at the Texas Rail Road Commission....
The fact that OFCOM apparently oversees the Post Office too makes me
wonder what else they oversee....
Just wait until you look at the Texas Rail Road Commission....
The Texas Railroad Commission purports to regulate the speech and activities >of citizens of other countries? Do tell...
In <10cr7n1$hbiu$1@dont-email.me> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:
[snip]
The fact that OFCOM apparently oversees the Post Office too makes me
wonder what else they oversee....
Just wait until you look at the Texas Rail Road Commission....
The Texas Railroad Commission purports to regulate the speech and activities >> of citizens of other countries? Do tell...
Don't give them any ideas....
https://order-order.com/2025/10/13/ofcom-fines-4chan-20000-for-violating-online-safety-act/
In addition, in responding to 4chan's claim of protection under the 1st >Amendment, Ofcom made the stunning claim that the 1st Amendment is irrelevant >and that UK law supersedes U.S. law. Indeed, it would seem to be making the >claim the UK law supersedes the laws of all nations worldwide and is supreme:
On Oct 16, 2025 at 10:04:46 AM PDT, "danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com> >wrote:
In <10cr7n1$hbiu$1@dont-email.me> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:
[snip]
The fact that OFCOM apparently oversees the Post Office too makes me
wonder what else they oversee....
Just wait until you look at the Texas Rail Road Commission....
The Texas Railroad Commission purports to regulate the speech and activities
of citizens of other countries? Do tell...
Don't give them any ideas....
I don't need to. According to you, they already make Ofcom look like pikers. >I'd love to hear the details.
In <10cr8tp$hbiu$4@dont-email.me> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:
On Oct 16, 2025 at 10:04:46 AM PDT, "danny burstein" <dannyb@panix.com>
wrote:
In <10cr7n1$hbiu$1@dont-email.me> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> writes:
[snip]
The fact that OFCOM apparently oversees the Post Office too makes me >>>
wonder what else they oversee....
Just wait until you look at the Texas Rail Road Commission....
The Texas Railroad Commission purports to regulate the speech and activities
of citizens of other countries? Do tell...
Don't give them any ideas....
I don't need to. According to you, they already make Ofcom look like pikers. >> I'd love to hear the details.
The Wiki description is a good start. Now visualize how they
can easily use those defined powers for lots of extended evil...
The Wiki description is a good start. Now visualize how they
can easily use those defined powers for lots of extended evil...
How they *could* use them, not how they *are* using them?
Doesn't sound like they're worse than Ofcom to me.
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 32:13:21 |
| Calls: | 178 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 78,690 |