4chan to British Censors: Get Stuffed

A funny thing happened on the way to once-Great Britain's transformation into George Orwell's dystopian Airstrip One: The renegade users of the anonymous 4chan forum got themselves legal representation and told British busybodies to sod off. 

A little background.

4chan's exploits are legendary, if not always savory.

Ever wanted to know how lefties came to believe that the perfectly innocent "OK" hand gesture is some kind of secret code for white supremacy?

That was 4chan.

When Pepsi held an online contest in 2012 to name a new Mountain Dew flavor, 4chan users hijacked it, flooding the rankings with names like “Hitler Did Nothing Wrong” and “Diabeetus.” That same year, they rigged a contest where fans could vote for Taylor Swift to perform at their school. I hesitate to tell you this part, but they rigged it so that the winning school was the Horace Mann School for the Deaf.

So I'm not saying that 4chan is a bunch of world-saving good guys. They aren't. What I am saying is that it is unwise to mess with the DGAF anonymous users of a forum dedicated to cultural and political pranks, and who often describe themselves as "weaponized autists."

They will come for you if you do.

And Another Thing: "Weaponized autists" is their term, not mine.

Even the Trump administration tried to warn off the U.K.'s censors. Last week, Marco Rubio's State Department warned that the “human rights situation worsened” in Britain in 2024 and criticized the country's so-called Online Safety Act, which is used and abused by British authorities to stifle speech around the world.

Including 4chan.

Big mistake — but not for the reason I would have guessed. 

Instead of going after the U.K.'s censorship board — aka the Office of Communications — in ways only they could dream up, 4chan hired Byrne & Storm, P.C. and Coleman Law, P.C. to represent them against His Majesty's Craptaculent Government.

Coleman Law is headed up by Ron Coleman. I've known Ron (virtually) for probably 20 years, and can tell you that you don't want to be opposite him in court. 

"According to press reports," 4chan's new lawyers said in a statement, "The U.K. Office of Communications ('Ofcom') has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter."

However, "4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court."

And: "American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes."

Finally, they warned that if needed, "we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles," and that "United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter."

The same U.S. authorities at State, I'd wager, that just ripped the U.K.'s censors a new one last week.

So color me shocked that 4chan pursued a legal remedy against Britain's notorious nannies, instead of doing what they do best, and waging an attritional war of embarrassment and manipulation.

At least for now.

Recommended: Democrat One-Party Rule Disgust, Discussed

Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy PJ Media’s conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join PJ Media VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!