[narrator]

If they want their assets, they will have to use U.S courts to get them and U.S courts will refuse to enforce British law that violates the first amendment. It's pretty simple actually. If they had assets in Britain, then they could get to them, but they don't.

[ivan_gammel]

They can just treat 4chan as malware server or a drug cartel. There exist sanction mechanisms against foreign entities that do not use local law enforcement in which case opinion of US courts will be irrelevant.

[achierius]

But it's not, and so the treaties to which the US is party for those cases would not apply.

What sanction methods are you thinking of that could get to US citizens on US soil without US governmental consent?

[ivan_gammel]

1. Preventing those citizens from doing illegal activities on UK soil

2. Using broader spectrum of law enforcement options if those citizens arrive in the UK

[ffsm8]

Blows my mind someone actually unironically makes this argument.

4chan is showing ads on their site, but if your idea had any grounds, the issue would be with the ad network, not 4chan.

While that'd be a pretty bad legal precedent too, it'd at least be coherent.

More realistically, 4chan will likely be banned by UK ISPs after a court ruling.

The previous mail was likely just to move the process forward to show they have no interest in following the UK law.

[ivan_gammel]

>4chan is showing ads on their site, but if your idea had any grounds, the issue would be with the ad network, not 4chan.

It's hard to understand the logic of this statement. Why the ad network? 4chan business is to show ads to users while offering them a platform for conversations. What 3rd party service do they use is irrelevant unless that is by coincidence an UK company.

>More realistically, 4chan will likely be banned by UK ISPs after a court ruling.

This is exactly what my comment above means.