4Chan Lawyers Introduce British First Amendment
4Chan lawyers have been trolling Ofcom over fines imposed under the UK's Online Safety Act. Now, they mean business: by introducing the UK Free Speech Act.
For the past six months, lawyers representing the internet forum 4Chan have been trolling UK regulators over alleged violations of local age verification laws.
In March, the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) announced the imposition of a 450,000 GBP fine, claiming 4Chan did not protect children from online pornography. Last year, it had already attempted to fine 4Chan 50,000 GBP for not assessing the risk of illegal material appearing on its platform, and imposed another 20,000 GBP for not setting out in its terms of service how it protects people from criminal content.
4Chan, says Ofcom, is in violation of the UK's Online Safety Act: a law which mandates age verification checks for any service with user-generated content or community features accessible to UK users.
But 4Chan is not based in the UK – It is a US firm enjoying the protection of the First Amendment, 4Chan's lawyer Preston Byrne argues – putting the enforcement of a key framework of the Online Safety Act to the test: that it would allow the UK to govern how services operating outside of its jurisdiction conduct their business.
Assessing that Ofcom's fines are void, Byrne has asked Ofcom to cease sending his client legal notifications, explaining that all further communication would be shredded to pouch the enclosure of his hamster, Mr. Whiskers. While he has had to explain to a US Judge that Mr. Whiskers does not actually exist, the meme continues to grow on the free speech community.
"Will we need to send them pictures of hamsters in response to fine demands?" Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales asked, while pondering whether he could be compelled to demand identity verification for Wikipedia editing.
Now, Byrne means business. Together with the Adam Smith Institute, he has introduced the UK Free Speech Act: a law that would codify similar protections as the US First Amendment.
L0la L33tz
The UK's Free Speech Problem
No other democracy has been cracking down as hard on what is in many other nations considered free speech as the UK. From No Kings protestors asking "who elected him?" to climate activist Greta Thunberg exclaiming "I support Palestine Action – I oppose Genocide," holding a sign under the impression of the right to have an opinion and express said opinion freely can land you in police custody quicker than you think.
Increasingly, such actions are now targeted against online speech. Journalists are raided for publishing unfavorable stories, activists are arrested for advocacy Tweets, grandmothers receive police visits for Facebook posts, and army veterans are questioned for re-sharing (albeit tasteless) memes.
While Prime Minister Keir Starmer has proudly proclaimed that "free speech, it's one of the founding values of the United Kingdom, and we protect it jealously and fiercely and always will," UK police made over 12,000 arrests for online posts since 2023, amounting to more than 30 arrests per day.
The Online Safety Act now exacerbates this issue. Under the guise of child protections, the UK demands that website and service operators KYC their users to verify their age – increasing the risk of prosecution by the Government.
Under the Universal Convention on Human Rights, to which all democracies are at least supposed to subscribe, anyone has the right to freely express their opinions; on the internet or otherwise. It just so happens that the UK has tied its right to freedom of expression to specific qualifications that appear to be so broad in scope that it leaves just enough room to arrest anyone for saying anything, anywhere.
L0la L33tz
Protecting Lawful Speech
Together with the Adam Smith Institute, Byrne now introduced the UK Free Speech Act: A model Bill that "provides a legal framework to recognise and restore the liberty of every person within, and the people of, the United Kingdom to receive and impart expression, and engage in expressive association, without interference by public authorities except in the narrow cases explicitly prescribed by law."
In particular, the Bill states, it is designed to "protect discourse on politics, morality, philosophy, or any other matter of public interest, including expression that others regard as offensive, insulting, abusive, shocking or hateful; confine criminal liability for expressive activity to a limited and traditionally excepted set of actions, including (among other things) unlawful threats, direct incitement of crime, and serious harassment; prevent the suppression of speech by public authorities via direct prohibitions or indirect actions which inhibit or discourage such expression; and repeal or amend enactments, and alter or abolish common law doctrines which deprive people of their right to engage in expressive discourse."
It additionally forbids the monitoring of non-criminal incidents through the Government, as well as the outsourcing of speech-monitoring to third parties, and requires the destruction of records in violation of the rule. It explicitly prohibits the compelling of speech through public authorities, and protects workers from dismissal based on personal expression.
Maybe most importantly, in light of the increased weaponization of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws used against journalists and activists, the Bill intends to stop essential service providers, such as banks and payment providers, from refusing or withdrawing services based on personal opinions.
"The big fight, the real fight, is to restore free speech in the UK," says Byrne. "The Model Bill is, as far as possible, to get the UK’s government out of the business of regulating opinions. [...] In a free society, fools, bigots, and assholes get to speak and remain free men. That is not the price of liberty. It is liberty, and the rest of us get it too."
Byrne is not alone in his belief that a free speech law for the UK is necessary. A petition to draft an act similar to the US First Amendment was introduced in July of last year, but rejected by Parliament under the claim that "it’s not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do."
From the British chapter of the international writers association PEN to Nigel Farage's Reform, people across the political spectrum have been calling to protect free speech in the UK.
Now, it seems that the UK may have just messed with the wrong hamster.
Independent journalism does not finance itself. If you enjoyed this article, please consider making a donation. If you would like to note a correction to this article, please email corrections@therage.co
