Britain's censorship agency sent its latest collection notice the week America turned 250.
Now it wants American police to shred the First Amendment for them.
The lawyer fighting back just told them what happens to any cop who tries.
Ofcom's Uncollected 4chan Fine Has No Legal Path on US Soil
Britain's communications regulator, Ofcom, is sitting on an uncollected £520,000 fine against 4chan – the American internet forum that operates from the United States, breaks no American law, and has told London to pound sand at every turn.
The fine breaks down as £450,000 for refusing to install age verification controls, £50,000 for skipping an illegal content risk assessment, and £20,000 for failing to outline content protections – plus £800 a day in running penalties.
The deadline for the latest payment passed this week.
It was never going to be met.
So Ofcom announced a new strategy.
Ofcom had no answer for how it planned to collect from a company with no UK staff, no UK servers, and not a pound of assets on British soil – so a spokesperson floated one: the regulator had "initiated work" and would pursue the fine "regardless of where the firm is based."
For overseas companies, this "can involve engaging debt recovery and financial investigation specialists in the jurisdiction where companies do have assets, as well as local law enforcement agencies and courts."
Local law enforcement agencies.
American ones.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan already had a word for what foreign governments are doing to American websites – a "direct attack" on free speech.
The Trump State Department agreed, telling Breitbart that the UK's Online Safety Act "undermines the right to free expression by imposing censorship on vague grounds" and that foreign laws "must not undermine the right to freedom of expression of Americans."
Now Ofcom wants American police to enforce the law Congress and the White House have both publicly condemned.
How 4chan Shut Down Ofcom's Online Safety Act Demands
Preston Byrne, the constitutional attorney representing 4chan, saw the statement and dispensed with diplomatic niceties.
"This is legally illiterate," Byrne wrote on X. "If they really want to sue us in the United States to recover a foreign censorship penalty, we welcome the fight."
Recruiting US officers to enforce a foreign censorship penalty against a First Amendment-protected publisher is not a gray area – it is a crime.
"Deprivation of rights under color of law is a literal felony in the United States," Byrne wrote.
Every legal path Ofcom has leads to the same wall.
US police cooperation "would have to go through the MLAT, which they have previously refused to use," Byrne explained – referring to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty process the UK has deliberately avoided.
A US lawsuit "would lead to certain defeat plus adverse precedent."
Any US court considering the matter would decline in "a million years," Byrne wrote, "because US courts don't collect debts for foreign sovereigns, and the UK knows it."
His theory on why Ofcom keeps sending invoices anyway: Westminster is using the regulator as a pressure valve.
"Admitting that the regime is unenforceable against Americans is politically disastrous," Byrne wrote. "They're going to pretend the Emperor is wearing clothes as long as they can."
Byrne's response to the first demand was an AI-generated hamster – a legal in-joke about improperly served papers being fit for rodent bedding.
When Ofcom wrote again with bank transfer details attached, Byrne posted the exchange publicly and sent another one.
The written reply cited the absence of UK assets, explained what enforcement would actually require in US court, and concluded – borrowing from Michael Jackson – "just beat it."
Congress Is Pushing the GRANITE Act to Kill UK Censorship of American Sites
Legal observers agree Ofcom has no path forward.
Myles Jackson said Ofcom has "no right imposing fines on US domiciled companies that they have no right to collect" and that the UK government has "no jurisdiction over the American Constitution."
Barrister Daniel ShenSmith put it plainly: "No US court is ever going to help Ofcom enforce this fine and override your own laws. It's frankly embarrassing."
Of the millions of pounds in fines Ofcom has issued under the Online Safety Act, only one company has paid in full – and it blocked UK users at the same time.
Every other target has ignored Ofcom or laughed at it.
Britain's Online Safety Act claims jurisdiction over every American website with British users – which means every American website, period.
At least 29 other nations have passed similar laws, with their regulators watching Ofcom to see if the tactic works.
Every conservative news site, comment section, and podcast platform on the internet is in the crosshairs.
Senator Eric Schmitt and Chairman Jordan are both advancing the GRANITE Act – the Guaranteeing Rights Against Novel International Tyranny and Extortion Act.
The bill strips sovereign immunity from foreign governments that try to censor Americans, opening them to lawsuits in US courts with damages starting at $1 million per violation.
Wyoming passed its own version through the state house 46-12.
The State Department has confirmed federal legislation is coming.
Ofcom picked America's 250th birthday week to announce it was sending for American police to collect a British speech fine.
The answer came back the same way it has every time: a hamster, a First Amendment, and a reminder that any cop who tries is looking at a federal felony charge.
Sources:
- Sean Moran, "Trump State Department: UK Online Safety Act Undermines Free Speech," Breitbart, August 4, 2025.
- Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne), X, July 9–10, 2026.
- Ofcom, Confirmation Decision: Investigation into 4chan Community Support LLC, Ofcom.org.uk, October 13, 2025.
- Preston Byrne, "Will Congress Shield the US from Foreign Attacks on the First Amendment?" The Spectator, February 2, 2026.
- "The GRANITE Act Can Reshape the Fight Against Foreign Censorship," Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, June 30, 2026.
