4chan Sends Hilarious, Hamster-Filled Reminder That U.S. Companies Need Not Follow British Speech Regulations

"We are not in the mood to discuss the matter further, and have not been in the mood for 250 years."

It's not every day that I wish more U.S. tech platforms could be like 4chan. But the message board certainly has the right idea when it comes to the U.K. speech police.

Ofcom, the U.K.'s communications regulator, has fined 4chan £520,000 for failing to implement age verification procedures and other measures required by the U.K.'s Online Safety Act. The penalty includes "£450,000 for not having age checks in place to prevent children seeing porn on its site," per Ofcom.

Ofcom also cited 4chan for failing to provide Ofcom with an "illegal content risk assessment" and for not including a section in its terms of service "specifying how individuals are to be protected from illegal content."

4chan responded to Ofcom with an AI-generated picture of a giant hamster eating a peanut.

This was attached to a truly excellent email response to Ofcom from 4chan lawyer Preston Byrne (who also explains the hamster joke backstory here). "Thanks. As has been explained to your agency, ad nauseam, the United Kingdom lost the American Revolutionary War," the email starts. "We are not in the mood to discuss the matter further, and have not been in the mood for 250 years."

After the hamster image—Nigel J. Whiskerford "dressed up as Godzilla and holding an equally giant peanut"—the email goes on to state that 4chan "reserves all rights and waives none," including "the right to sue you again and/or to respond to future correspondence with an even larger rodent, such as a marmot."

This is exactly the attitude U.S. companies should be taking with foreign authorities intent on forcing their online speech regulations on the rest of us.

American companies like 4chan—which has no headquarters or assets in the U.K.—are not required to follow U.K. internet laws.

4chan's "only content regulator is the First Amendment," wrote Nico Perrino, executive vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. "The Brits don't get to colonize American companies operating out of America."

Those U.S. free speech protections include "the right to speak anonymously, as every 4chan user does, and the right to refuse foreign age verification mandates," as Byrne posted on X. The U.K.'s "2023 law doesn't override 250 years of American independence."

Ofcom director of enforcement Suzanne Cater told the BBC: "The UK is setting new standards for online safety" and will "take robust enforcement action against firms that fall short." She said that "companies—wherever they're based—are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking, and gambling."

The U.K. has the legal right to try to shield children from whatever it likes, however it likes, within its own borders. If it thinks 4chan is dangerous, it can block U.K. residents from accessing 4chan by requiring internet service providers to block access and so on.

But it cannot punish "an American publisher with no assets in the country" for failing to comply with U.K. regulations, as Perrino points out. It cannot decide that its way of barring children from certain online speech must be the way of the whole world.

Alas, 4chan is far from alone in facing such attempts at global speech policing from Ofcom. "U.K. regulators have quietly been pressuring U.S. companies to comply with their orders, sparking outrage among a small but tenacious coalition of American legislators and free speech lawyers," Reason's Meagan O'Rourke reported in January.

O'Rourke noted how Byrne—who also represents Gab.com, Kiwi Farms, and Personal Autonomy LLC—was drafting model legislation to "allow U.S. companies and individuals to sue foreign governments that attempt to censor Americans."

Lately, Byrne has been helping to draft a "UK Free Speech Act 2026" as a model bill that a member of Parliament could pick up.

We are giving it to the world, anyone can pick it up.

I will happily speak with any MP in any party who is interested in expanding free speech in the UK. The bill is a menu of options. Any one of them would move the needle closer to the US 1A position.https://t.co/lAi5k0TAxY

— Preston Byrne (@prestonjbyrne) March 22, 2026

---

In the News 

A California police officer has been criminally charged for allegedly taking bribes of money and sex from a sex business. Officer Benjamin Yarbrough of the Hayward Police Department faces one count of accepting a bribe, a felony. The Alameda County District Attorney's Office handled the investigation after the Hayward Police Department passed it off owing to the police chief's "familial relationship" with Yarbrough.

The matter is largely being framed as an issue of police corruption. But it also showcases the way that the criminalization of prostitution can make it easier for cops to exploit and abuse sex workers. If a police officer can throw you in jail if you won't sleep with him, is that really a free exchange of sex for protection?

The Mercury News reports:

On April 2, 2025, Yarbrough received a sexual service and took $1,000 as a bribe in response to extorting Yangiong Xiong "with the implied threat of arrest, or as payment to influence his present or prospective official duties as a police officer in ways such as providing protection, investigating competitors or providing intelligence about law enforcement activity," according to a declaration of probable cause.

The district attorney's office opened an investigation after San Jose police arrested Xiong in a separate case and discovered Yarbrough allegedly had frequent contact with her.

The declaration stated that Yarbrough used his work and personal cellphones "to arrange personal sexual appointments, receive free sexual services and further receive $1,000 after identifying himself as a friendly police officer who wanted to keep the operation safe."

---

On Substack 

'Links between social media use and mental wellness in youth are an artifact of other factors.' Chris Ferguson, lead author of a new paper published in Current Psychology, explains the results in a new post to his substack, Grimoire Manor:

In a recent peer-reviewed paper I confirm what many people have been saying: that any weak correlations between time spent on social media and youth mental health are due to "third" variables. In other words, youth who are stressed by their real lives may turn to social media a bit more a compensatory mechanism rather than social media causing those mental health problems.

I analyzed a sample of thousands of youth in the UK in the BrainWaves dataset (and a heartfelt thank you to the BrainWaves folks for giving me access). This included data on hours per day spent on social media as well as several outcomes related to mental health (depression and anxiety, mental wellbeing, quality of life, self-esteem, social phobia1 as well as friendships and other activities).

More here.

---

More Sex & Tech 

• What's in Trump's new "National AI Legislative Framework"? Reason's Jack Nicastro takes a look.

• Data on Australia's ban on under-16-year-olds using social media show the law "has barely moved the needle," notes Mike Masnick at Techdirt. "The usage drop was only marginally larger than the normal seasonal dip that happens every year. In other words, the 'world-first' ban achieved roughly the same effect as summer ending." Masnick suggests this is worse than just being useless, since "the ban selected for vulnerability and filtered against resourcefulness."

• J.D. Tuccille reports on last week's U.S. Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Section 230.

• Halter's AI-powered collars for cows "create a virtual fence for cattle and enable farmers to monitor the animals' locations and health indicators through an app," reports Bloomberg. "Its collars, which are solar-powered, connect to farmers' phones to allow them to manage pastures remotely—for example, a rancher can herd their cows using vibrations and audio cues from the collars."

• According to Spotify's self-reported data, 2025 saw "more than 13,800 artists who generated at least $100,000" from the site.

• Meet the Alabama gubernatorial candidate who wants to "legalize sex stores," "make Montgomery a strip club city," and "bring prayer back in schools."

Comments

[BYODB]

This isn't a conversation about free speech rights in the Untied States, it's simply noting that the UK has no jurisdiction in the United States.

The UK will probably end up with a 'great firewall' rather like China, if they don't already. Guess which side of the firewall American websites like 4Chan will end up on?

The problem, if it's a problem at all, is that American companies want that sweet sweet market share in the UK so they knuckle under for their government and just so happen to enforce those rules everywhere in order to be allowed to keep doing business there.

You see the same problem with companies doing business in China, or even California for that matter.

At some point, places like the UK will do enough damage that those companies can't hold their nose and make a profit there, and then they'll wonder why their internet sucks so bad and doesn't have anything but BBC content.

[mad.casual]

This isn't a conversation about free speech rights in the Untied States, it's simply noting that the UK has no jurisdiction in the United States.

Why do you hate womb/front-hole havers?

[Don't look at me! ( Is the war over yet?)]

What about InTeRnAtIoNaL lAw?

[mad.casual]

But it also showcases the way that the criminalization of prostitution can make it easier for cops to exploit and abuse sex workers.

The same way you would exploit and abuse workers of any other profession like software engineers, reporters, masons, farm laborers... because, you know, 1 in 5 engineers on a college campus designs a bridge or makes airplane engine parts without their consent.

[Idaho-Bob]

Preston Byrne
@prestonjbyrne
...mind you: in the only country in which 4chan operates, the United States, it is breaking no law and indeed its conduct is expressly protected by the First Amendment.

The UK is fining a company that doesn't operate in the UK. This sounds a lot like the time they said they would arrest Americans for hate speech.

[diver64]

Exactly. If the UK doesn't like 4Chan content then as pointed out it can just ban it. It can't tell a US company to comply with it's laws and do what it demands they do just because. 4Chan's response was quite correct.

[Davedave]

4chan's response was stupid, because no-one expects them to comply. They've been told 'pay the fine, or you'll be blocked in the UK', so a response of 'haha we're not paying, what are you going to do about it?' is sheer idiocy: they've already been informed of the consequences.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

I don't know anything about 4chan, other than hearing about it. The UK can go suck it in my opinion however. While I have issues with the USA forcing it's will on the world, I'm equally annoyed by european countries trying to force their peculiar and often demented rules on others. There is an elitist attitude, where some european countries still believe that they rule the world. They have lost stature and are more akin to parasites that rulers of the world. Kudo's to 4chan to remind them of their scope of power.

[MWAocdoc]

It's worse than that. If you go to the UK in person as a tourist, they can arrest you for saying what you just posted here. 4chan can get away with refusing to pay the fines in this scenario, and I'm glad someone is willing to stand up for their rights, but others may not be aware that they don't, even as visitors, have American free-speech rights when they travel outside the US.

[Rick James]

but others may not be aware that they don't, even as visitors, have American free-speech rights when they travel outside the US.

Next thing you're going to tell me is that carrying CBD oil in your bag when you travel into the former Soviet Union might get you tangled up in their legal system.

[diver64]

Laugh but you have no idea how many people I've talked to in my travels around the world totally ignorant that what they can do in the US will get them thrown in prison in the country they are visiting. Stories every week of people stealing shit in muslim countries, having sex on top of pyramids in Thailand and so on.

[mad.casual]

Data on Australia's ban on under-16-year-olds using social media show the law "has barely moved the needle,"

And by "barely moved the needle" he means, "moved the needle down" by, in his own words, "marginally [more] than the normal seasonal dip that happens every year" in addition to the general between-season downward trend.

JFC, if I were rooting for the social media companies, the graph doesn't look good. But I suppose if anyone would know "worse than just useless" it would be Masnick and his groupies.

[Davedave]

The 4chan thing is performative trolling. The UK's law has a process to follow before sites can be blocked. The last step, after asking for responses or changes, is issuing a fine. If that is not paid, then blocking is required. No-one ever expected 4chan to pay or comply, but the rule of law means they have to be given the chance.

[MWAocdoc]

It's not just paying the fine, it's also complying with the rest of the law.

[Rick James]

I don't know what the due process for the UK is, but at least intuitively, Davedave sounds correct on this. I'm guessing he's right, that the UK has step 1: Notify and demand changes. Step2: Issue fine (which I agree, shouldn't be a step if the entity has no legal footprint in the country) Step 3: block. Knowing the UK, there is probably a Step 4: Arrest the CEO or owner if he lands in your country.

[Chuck P. (Now with less Sarc more snark)]

'Links between social media use and mental wellness in youth are an artifact of other factors.'

That other factor being teachers and media forcing existential angst upon them in the form of Marxist propaganda. Kids being miserable is an absolute necessity for revolution.

[Martinned2]

It's great that Americans think they have such great free speech rights. Whether they do is a conversation for another day. Suffice it to say that if an American company wants to do business in the UK, for example by making its website available to a UK audience in order to earn advertising revenue, it has to obey UK law. If you don't like that, you can take it up with President Trump, who is currently trying to sue the BBC for what it broadcast in the UK.

[Rick James]

Suffice it to say that if an American company wants to do business in the UK, for example by making its website available to a UK audience in order to earn advertising revenue, it has to obey UK law.

No it does not. The UK is more than free to block any website that it finds non-compliant from being available in the UK, provided that company has no footprint or business relationship within the UK. If the UK finds a website that is non-compliant with UK laws, it can prosecute its citizens for accessing it and/or the content that Britain makes illegal, or create a Great Firewall of Britain to block it. Like France does.

[Martinned]

The UK is also more than free to impose fines on 4Chan, and recover those fines against any assets 4Chan might have in the UK or elsewhere. It is also free, if its domestic laws allow, to impose criminal liability on the directors of 4Chan.

As per the Lotus case, almost 100 years ago now, 4Chan is within the UK's jurisdiction, and the UK can legitimately enforce its laws against it in whatever way it likes. If 4Chan doesn't want to obey UK law, it should prevent UK users from accessing its site. That's what many US websites do who don't want to comply with GDPR.

[Rick James]

American companies like 4chan—which has no headquarters or assets in the U.K.—are not required to follow U.K. internet laws.

There's a lesson here that American tech companies can learn. Oh, something something tariffs.

[Rick James]

The matter is largely being framed as an issue of police corruption. But it also showcases the way that the criminalization of prostitution can make it easier for cops to exploit and abuse sex workers.

If a young slightly intoxicated woman is pulled over because she's going 25 over the speed limit and weaving all over the road, and the cop drapes his arm over the roof of the car and says to the woman through the driver's side window, "You know... we can fix this right here and now..." while fiddling with his belt buckle, does this force us into an unfortunate framing of police corruption while showcasing the way that criminalization of speeding and DUI laws make it easier to exploit young women driving alone at night?

[Roberta]

ban on under-16-year-olds using social media

What's up with that? Do we complain about children's being social? Or using media? No, it's only somehow the confluence of those things that's objectionable — and not even always.

Does anyone remember discouragement of children from using Usenet? Or BBSs? No, if anything adults encouraged such participation, loved to see it. There were porn newsgroups and exchanges they didn't want children to see, but that was a small price to pay for generally encouraging children's engagement and tech use. How many parents didn't say proudly, "My child is online; I'm hoping s/he'll teach me how to use those things!"?

[Rick James]

I know... and to think none of those systems enjoyed The First Amendment of the Internet.

[Rick James]

*thinks*

Reason accidentally notices that:

1. Section 230 only applies in the U.S.
B: Borders are both meaningful and useful.

[Mickey Rat]

Indeed.

[SRG2]

This is exactly the attitude U.S. companies should be taking with foreign authorities intent on forcing their online speech regulations on the rest of us.

Yes. And with domestic authorities as well.

[creech]

+1 Gen. McAuliffe

[jonnysage]

Can we get rid of all the GDPR crap in the US, now?

[Agammamon]

> to extorting Yangiong Xiong

This is why we need more immigrants - to be an exploited underclass to do the sex work Americans won't do.

[Agammamon]

Huh, so borders are important *now* ENB?

[diver64]

4Chan should have dared the UK to send it's navy after them.

[CindyF]

According to newly released documents by Sen Grassley office, it appears Special Counsel Jack Smith conferred with both DC Chief Judges Beryl Howell and James Boasberg as to their legal strategy in targeting the president and his associates.

[LIBtranslator]

Monitor-mounted diode lasers set to burn holes in the retinas of all viewers would, I expect, keep non-adults and adults alike from looking at any internet pictures, soiled or sin-free. This solution also moots in advance any suggestion of ageist discrimination. If the unlucky ones are permanently blinded, those casualty sacrifices are to be expected in a war on images, and tax-funded reparation payments for life would, of course, be payable. We certainly do NOT want to be unfair about this!