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’s communications regulator, Ofcom, together with my co-counsel Ron Coleman. The suit seeks to defend 4chan from the UK’s attempts to censor that website using the UK’s new Internet censorship law, the Online Safety Act.
What some of you may not know is that I have personally committed to defend, pro bono, any U.S. website which operates lawfully in the United States – no matter how large or small – against the UK’s attempts to infringe on the First Amendment.
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.
To say that this site’s subject matter is controversial is an understatement; as a Catholic I freely admit I struggled at first with representing the site. SaSu, 4chan, Gab, and Kiwi Farms – the complete list of Ofcom’s U.S. enforcement targets to date – are some of the most unsympathetic websites in the world, from a political point of view.
This was, in my view, a deliberate strategy by Ofcom: pick the most radioactive free speech targets in the world, isolate them in confidential proceedings, punish them, and publicly shame them when you claim the fine notices or blocking orders as a win. The only way to counter that strategy is to ensure that no target goes without competent counsel, every target knows what Ofcom is trying to do, and every case will be fought like hell, in as public a fashion as possible. As Justice Brandeis said, “sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
The victory condition of the U.S. pushback against Ofcom is the successful defense of the First Amendment – all of the First Amendment. If we concede even a scintilla of our constitutional rights, we fail. If we let any target fight alone, we fail. If any censorship demand gets through our border, we fail.
That means we defend every site, however small or controversial it may be, from foreign attempts to infringe on their constitutional rights. It means not giving up so much as an inch of ground without a major fight, if those are the instructions. It means we must not ever lose.
... continue reading