Foreign censors are getting bolder in their attacks on American speech.
One British regulator just crossed a constitutional red line.
And British regulators declared war on Americans’ First Amendment rights with this awful move.
Ofcom Declares War on American Speech Rights
The United Kingdom’s media regulator Ofcom decided it could regulate the entire internet.¹
What happened next exposed the dirty truth about foreign censorship.
Preston Byrne, the attorney representing 4chan and Kiwi Farms, wasn’t having it when Ofcom started sending what he called "frankly asinine letters under English law" to his American clients.²
His clients are "entirely American," Byrne explained.³
All operations, infrastructure, and servers are on American soil with zero connection to the United Kingdom whatsoever.³
That didn’t stop Ofcom from threatening these American companies with a £20,000 fine plus £100 daily penalties.⁴
The regulator figured it could simply bypass American sovereignty and force U.S. companies to comply with British censorship demands.
Byrne responded by filing a federal lawsuit in Washington, D.C. designed to expose Ofcom’s constitutional overreach.⁵
The Constitutional Contradiction That Destroys Ofcom’s Case
Ofcom made a fatal error in its official response to the lawsuit.
The regulator sent what Byrne described as "a 40-page letter of tremendous length, which is deeply unserious," containing an extraordinary admission.⁶
In trying to assert its authority over American websites, Ofcom wrote this to 4chan: "We also note 4chan’s claim that it is protected from enforcement action taken by Ofcom because of the First Amendment to the US Constitution."⁷
"However, the First Amendment binds only the US government and not overseas bodies, such as Ofcom, and therefore, it does not affect Ofcom’s powers to enforce the Act in this case."⁷
Read that again slowly because Ofcom just destroyed its entire legal position with one sentence.
Ofcom admits the First Amendment doesn’t bind them because they’re a foreign power operating outside the U.S. constitutional order.⁷
But that very admission means they have no authority to enforce British law on American soil.
You can’t have it both ways – either you’re bound by American law or you have no jurisdiction in America.
Ofcom tried to claim both immunity from U.S. law and authority over U.S. companies simultaneously.
The logical contradiction collapses under its own weight.
Why Trump Administration Should Hammer Ofcom Like They Did Brazil
The Trump Administration already dealt with this exact situation when Brazil’s Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes pulled the identical stunt.
De Moraes tried to force X (formerly Twitter) to censor critics by threatening Elon Musk’s representative with imprisonment and freezing Starlink’s assets in Brazil.⁸
He issued secret censorship orders, bypassed proper legal channels, and targeted American citizens and companies for speech protected under the U.S. Constitution.⁹
Trump didn’t waste time.
In July 2025, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent hit de Moraes with sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, freezing whatever U.S. assets the Brazilian judge had.⁹
"Alexandre de Moraes has taken it upon himself to be judge and jury in an unlawful witch hunt against U.S. and Brazilian citizens and companies," Bessent said.⁹
Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked de Moraes’s visa along with his family members for "complicity in aiding and abetting de Moraes’ unlawful censorship campaign against U.S. persons on U.S. soil."¹⁰
Trump even threatened 50% tariffs on Brazilian products over the "witch hunt" against his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro.¹¹
The message was crystal clear – foreign officials who target American speech face real consequences.
Ofcom is running the same playbook as de Moraes, just with a British accent.
The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Ofcom Conveniently Ignores
Ofcom claims it doesn’t need to follow proper legal channels because its investigation is "administrative, not criminal."¹²
That’s a lie of omission designed to bypass the U.S.-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty.
The MLAT exists specifically to handle cross-border enforcement requests between the United States and United Kingdom.¹³
When a foreign government wants to compel evidence or cooperation from American companies, it’s supposed to file a formal request with the U.S. Department of Justice under the MLAT.¹⁴
American courts then decide whether to honor it.¹⁴
What foreign regulators can’t do is email American companies directly and threaten criminal penalties while pretending it’s just "routine compliance monitoring."
Byrne’s lawsuit lays this out clearly: "None of these actions constitutes valid service under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, United States law, or any other proper international legal process."¹⁵
The lawsuit continues: "Ofcom…may require United States citizens to comply with information notices and potentially incriminate themselves on demand without Ofcom first obtaining a judicial warrant or serving a request under the UK-United States Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty procedure."¹⁵
This isn’t an accident or an oversight.
Ofcom knows exactly what it’s doing – trying to skip the legal process that would require American courts to approve its demands.
The 7% Theory That Would Let China Censor Facebook
Ofcom’s jurisdictional theory is even more absurd than its First Amendment claim.
The regulator admits the Online Safety Act only applies within the UK, then interprets "links with the UK" so broadly the limitation ceases to exist.¹⁶
4chan has "links with the UK," according to Ofcom, because 7% of its users are British.¹⁶
That’s enough for Ofcom to claim 4chan "targets" the United Kingdom.¹⁶
Ofcom even argues that "a UK user base in the hundreds of thousands is, of itself, a significant number."¹⁶
Stop and think about what this precedent means.
By Ofcom’s logic, China could regulate Facebook because millions of Chinese citizens use VPNs to access it.
Iran could regulate Instagram.
North Korea could regulate YouTube.
Every authoritarian regime on Earth could claim jurisdiction over American websites based solely on how many of their citizens visit those sites.
This isn’t about protecting British children from harmful content.
It’s about establishing a framework where any country can force American companies to comply with their censorship demands by claiming incidental foreign visitors create jurisdiction.
Congress and States Are Preparing to Fight Back
Byrne didn’t just file a lawsuit – he’s building a broader resistance movement against global censorship.
"We’ve also contacted the White House, both houses of Congress," Byrne revealed.¹⁷
"I’m advised that there are a number of senators in Congress and representatives in Congress who are looking at introducing a bill to put a stop to this."¹⁷
He’s also working at the state level.
Byrne proposed a New Hampshire law that "basically creates a cause of action against a foreign censor seeking to enforce foreign censorship law on US soil with penalties of $1 million per occurrence and a waiver of sovereign immunity in the New Hampshire courts."¹⁸
The strategy is brilliant – if foreign regulators want to claim they can ignore American sovereignty, then American states will strip them of the sovereign immunity they’re trying to hide behind.
Byrne summed up his approach perfectly: "Ultimately, from a global free speech resistance standpoint, and this is something that I think Ofcom really doesn’t understand. We don’t care what the UK thinks in the United States…And our objective is really to demonstrate the toothlessness of these global regimes in the United States where most of the internet is based."¹⁹
The Enforcement Reality Ofcom Doesn’t Want to Discuss
Ofcom can threaten fines all day long, but there’s one problem the regulator doesn’t want to acknowledge.
Even if Ofcom somehow wins in British courts and levies fines against American companies, it can’t collect them without U.S. government cooperation.
The United States doesn’t enforce foreign censorship penalties, especially ones that contradict the First Amendment.
American courts won’t help foreign governments punish speech that would be protected domestically.
Ofcom’s current strategy – ignoring the Constitution, dismissing MLAT requirements, and issuing fines it can’t collect – is regulatory theater at best.
At worst, it’s setting up British officials for the same treatment Trump gave Brazilian censors.
The British government repeatedly assured President Trump that it wasn’t using sovereign power to censor American citizens.²⁰
Ofcom’s letter admitting it considers itself exempt from U.S. law while simultaneously claiming authority over U.S. companies "rather undermines" those assurances, as Byrne diplomatically noted.²⁰
Trump already showed foreign censors what happens when they target American speech – sanctions, visa revocations, and tariffs.
If Ofcom keeps pushing, British officials might discover firsthand that the Trump Administration doesn’t bluff when it comes to defending the First Amendment.
¹ "UK Speech Regulator Ofcom Claims First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Americans From Its Censorship Law," Reclaim The Net, October 16, 2025.
² Ibid.
³ Ibid.
⁴ Ibid.
⁵ Ibid.
⁶ Ibid.
⁷ Ibid.
⁸ "Blocking of Twitter in Brazil," Wikipedia, September 12, 2025.
⁹ "Treasury Sanctions Alexandre de Moraes," U.S. Department of the Treasury, July 30, 2025.
¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ "U.S. sanctions Brazilian Judge Alexandre de Moraes," CBS News, July 30, 2025.
¹² "UK Speech Regulator Ofcom Claims First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Americans From Its Censorship Law," Reclaim The Net, October 16, 2025.
¹³ "Treaty With The United Kingdom on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters," Congress.gov, 1996.
¹⁴ "Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties and Letters Rogatory," Federal Judicial Center, April 2024.
¹⁵ "UK Speech Regulator Ofcom Claims First Amendment Doesn’t Protect Americans From Its Censorship Law," Reclaim The Net, October 16, 2025.
¹⁶ Ibid.
¹⁷ Ibid.
¹⁸ Ibid.
¹⁹ Ibid.
²⁰ Ibid.
