Categories
international affairs social media

Rogue British Agency

Ofcom has a low batting average in collecting its extortionate fines.

This is the UK agency enforcing the UK’s Online Safety Act. Ofcom’s mission includes forcing sundry websites to require all visitors to present proof of age — essentially, to ID themselves.

The Act also lets Ofcom compel services that enable encrypted messaging to provide a way to tell whether anything illegal is being said or shown in the messages. That is, compel them to render the encryption pointless.

LBC reports that “Just two tech companies [out of 11 socked with big fines] have paid fines to Ofcom for being in breach of the Online Safety Act, the regulator’s chief executive has admitted.”

One is Itai Tech, a British firm. It paid £55,000. I find no info about the second, and Ofcom generally doesn’t disclose whether individual companies it has fined have paid up.

Among the known non-payers, several are based outside of the UK. In other words, the UK government is trying to censor and extort the whole world, or at least the semi-free parts of it.

4chan, based in the U.S., has fought Ofcom very publicly. It “owes” (so far) maybe £520,000, which it has vowed to never pay.

4Chan’s lawyer expects that Ofcom would receive “a very chilly reception in an American courtroom if it ever tries to enforce its fines in the United States.” Its only alternative, he says, is to wage war and try to extract payment that way.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing

Illustration created with Grok Imagine

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom ideological culture media and media people Popular

Memed Into the Public Domain?

When the definitive history of the 2016 presidential election is written, the central figure may turn out to be . . . a frog.

“Pepe,” to be precise.

The cartoon frog with red lips started out as a minor figure in a Matt Furie webcomic, but came to symbolize so much more.

“This iconic amphibian has been labeled a Nazi, condemned by a presidential candidate, and now is at the center of an important First Amendment battle in an era of unlimited replication, imitation, and mutation,” writes Zach Weissmueller in a highly entertaining story in Reason. “It’s a fight that involves the alt-right, Trump voters, a powerful Washington, D.C.-based law firm, and the anonymous online image board 4chan. . . .”

Mike Cernovich, the pro-Trump, anti-SJW publicity artist, has found himself at the center of the legal controversy. He’s hired a lawyer.

Oddly — or maybe not, politics and culture wars being what they are — the lawyer for Pepe’s creator makes much of the alt-right/hate group usages of Pepe:

“You can’t copy other people’s ideas and claim free speech,” says Tompros. “[The alt-right is] absolutely free to spout hate in some other form. We just don’t want them using Pepe the Frog to do it.”

Contra Furie’s lawyer, you are allowed to copy others’ ideas in a free society. Copyright is something a bit narrower. Trickier.

This fight over the satirical use of a Trickster figure may turn out to be a legal and cultural landmark. “Fair use” could come to mean what Mr. Cernovich’s lawyer argues, ideas “memed into the public domain.”

Meanwhile, to the many causes of Hillary Clinton’s cruel fate in 2016, we can add a cartoon frog.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.


PDF for printing