Lawyer: U.K.’s Ofcom can’t play SPEECH POLICE on U.S. soil

09/05/2025 / By Ramon Tomey

American lawyer Ronald Coleman argues that Britain’s Ofcom cannot dictate speech policies for American platforms under the Online Safety Act (OSA), emphasizing that U.S. free speech protections must prevail on American soil.
U.S.-based platforms 4Chan and Kiwi Farms are suing Ofcom, rejecting demands to comply with OSA requirements – such as removing “illegal” speech by British standards – claiming it violates the First Amendment.
The lawsuit challenges whether foreign governments can enforce censorship laws globally, potentially influencing how similar laws (like the EU’s Digital Services Act) interact with U.S. constitutional rights.
Despite both platforms blocking U.K. access, Ofcom continues to threaten fines (up to £18M or 10 percent of global revenue), prompting accusations of unconstitutional overreach by the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
The case is framed as a defense of American rights against global censorship, with Coleman stating it protects “every American” from foreign attempts to suppress dissent.

The British Office of Communications (Ofcom) can’t play speech police on U.S. soil despite the new powers it is granted under the Online Safety Act (OSA), according to American lawyer Ronald Coleman.

Coleman made the remarks during an interview with Josh Howie of GB News, in response to the commentator’s question about Ofcom’s efforts to pressure U.S.-based platforms into obeying the OSA. “We only want to make sure that those laws stop at the shores of the U.K.,” he said. “Frankly, they can expand as far as they want – just not to the shores of the United States.”

“If you wanna build a wall around your citizens, … do it the way North Korea does it. Do it the way China does it. But don’t come to our little island and try to tell us how to conduct our business.”

Coleman’s remarks come amid a lawsuit by 4Chan and Kiwi Farms, which are both based in the United States. Ofcom is demanding that the two platforms comply with the OSA by submitting “risk assessments,” removing speech deemed illegal under British standards and verifying user identities. The two platforms face fines of up to £18 million ($24 million) or 10 percent of global revenue for noncompliance.

But 4Chan and Kiwi Farms, represented by Coleman and attorney Preston Byrne of the Byrne & Storm law firm, argued that British regulators have no authority to dictate speech on American soil. The platforms’ lawsuit, filed Aug. 27 in a federal court at the District of Columbia, accused Ofcom of violating the First Amendment by attempting to enforce extraterritorial speech restrictions.

The case could set a precedent for how national censorship laws interact with the inherently borderless nature of the internet. Brighteon.AI‘s Enoch engine points out that the OSA “threatens free speech by criminalizing dissent under vague accusations of ‘false information.'” This, in turn, “weaponizes the state against truth-tellers.”

American platforms fight back

4Chan and Kiwi Farms argued in their lawsuit that the Ofcom’s requirements are unconstitutional, as they would force American companies to suppress speech protected under U.S. law. “Delaware and West Virginia are not part of the U.K.,” the lawsuit states. “Their citizens, both natural and corporate, do not answer to the United Kingdom.”

The legal battle underscores a broader clash between Western governments over online governance. While UK officials claim the OSA protects users – children in particular – from harmful content, critics warn it empowers regulators to suppress dissent globally.

Both platforms have already taken steps to limit U.K. access, with Kiwi Farms blocking British IPs entirely. Despite this, Ofcom continues to demand compliance.

Byrne condemned the regulator’s tactics, declaring that “American citizens do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an email.” He also lauded his clients for bravely choosing to “assert their constitutional rights … in the face of these foreign demands.” (Related: U.K. regulator pressured U.S. tech firms to enforce British speech laws, leaked emails reveal.)

Historically, the U.S. has resisted foreign censorship attempts, particularly under the Trump administration, which threatened trade retaliation against countries targeting conservative platforms like Rumble and Truth Social. The current case could embolden other tech firms to defy overseas speech laws, especially as similar legislation – such as the European Union’s Digital Services Act – expands globally.

The outcome may hinge on whether U.S. courts affirm that foreign governments cannot override constitutional protections. As Coleman noted, this fight isn’t just about two platforms. “With this action, our clients defend the free speech rights of every American,” he said.

Watch this video about alternative video sharing platform BitChute responding to Ofcom’s censorship demands.

This video is from The Prisoner channel on Brighteon.com.