Set/Reset Deadlines: Replies due by 1/19/2026. (tj)
—
Dec 31, 2025
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
—
Dec 31, 2025
MINUTE ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply: It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant shall file its Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on or before January 19, 2026. SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Rudolph Contreras on 1/1/2026. (lcrc2)
For context a lot of tech companies and online services run financial scheme where all their benefit is 'located' in the lowest tax allowed country, in Ireland for the EU. Trying for a 'fair' % fine would just make the amount equal 0. A flat amount would make all the tech giants laugh or instantly kill any smaller business.
The DSA and the OSA currently allow for fines up to €20M and £18M respectively. That's the "flat amount". It already exists. The "X% of global revenue" provision only kicks in when "X% of global revenue" is greater than the "flat amount".
So yes, as written, Ofcom and the EU overlords currently have the ability to kill any small tech startup.
I just want to remind King Charles that the Donroe Doctrine is in effect. I would hate to see those guards with the big stupid hats all bleeding out of their ears.
I just want to remind King Charles that the Donroe Doctrine is in effect. I would hate to see those guards with the big stupid hats all bleeding out of their ears.
They've spent most of their careers with the regimental sergeant major screaming obscenities next to their heads. A little sonic weapon isn't going to match that.
Why did they think this was a good idea? Wikipedia for all its faults is still regarded positively by normies. The optics of going after Wikipedia of all sites is horrible.
Ofcom seems to be acting more like an impotent, tough guy lolcow as time goes on. Their understanding of law reminds me of sovereign citizens.
Easiest solution is just to pass regulations banning the UK Parliament or Ofcom from engaging in speech in or to the United States. Does any of the constitution apply to them? If not, just rule that our side won without proceeding any further because they have no legal rights to expect due process.
I think it was interesting how they compared themselves to so many murderous dictatorial regimes, but the point there still seems strong. I feel like the other side is winning this so far, but maybe I'm just too used to the other side being Russel Greer rather than someone who can make a persuasive sounding argument. The entire point of the American revolution was that these shitheads don't get to regulate us at all, so if American law has since been written to allow it then American law must be changed to fix the error.
Only if you don't think too hard about it. In all those cases, unless I'm misreading something, the acts under contention took place within the borders of the states in question, under the auspices of the state, making them sovereign acts. None took place against foreign entities outside the borders of those states. The comparison falls apart once you extend this principle to levying fines against a foreign entity with no presence within the borders of the state, for breaching laws within that state, merely because citizens of that state have discovered the means to access it.
The closest is the Russian case, but even there you have a Russian citizen suing his own country for threatening to seize his property within its own borders.
Still weird how they try to split the difference between their laws applying to US citizens but our laws don't apply to them. Euros are absolutely insufferable.
Still weird how they try to split the difference between their laws applying to US citizens but our laws don't apply to them. Euros are absolutely insufferable.
The House of cards was for the US to become & join the EU.
Instead of self governing.
Reason this allll happened is backroom deals & backroom contracts not told to public learned threw lawsuits & companies talking about what they are told to do.
Most global homo & global deals/contracts
The comparison falls apart once you extend this principle to levying fines against a foreign entity with no presence within the borders of the state, for breaching laws within that state, merely because citizens of that state have discovered the means to access it.
Expanding on this point a little more, now I've thought about it.
Imagine you have two countries bordering one another, country A and country B. Country A makes it a crime to allow people to post or read letters on physical bulletin board unless the board's owner has presented a plan to remove any mention of the word "pancake" from their board. Someone in country B puts up a bulletin board that is close enough to the border that it can be read from country A with a cheap set of binoculars, and if your arm is strong enough you can throw a dart at the board with a message on it. Naturally, being from a country that isn't insane, the owner of the board in country B doesn't have any plan to remove mentions of pancakes from his board. He occasionally posts detailed reviews of different kinds of pancakes, which can be read by citizens of country A at any time they like.
Does country A have the right to levy fines and criminal charges against the owner of the board in country B for the actions of citizens in country A?
IF you said yes, you may have a career waiting for you at OfCom or the West Midlands Police Force.
At this point most of us bongs would welcome you as liberators. I've been learning Chinese in the hopes that they come here (even they have better speech and press freedoms), but if the Americans do then I don't even need to learn a different language, I can just drop the U from a bunch of words.
At this point most of us bongs would welcome you as liberators. I've been learning Chinese in the hopes that they come here (even they have better speech and press freedoms), but if the Americans do then I don't even need to learn a different language, I can just drop the U from a bunch of words.
That'd be nice. The Chinese could teach us some good shit too, New Britain will be a wonderland of Texas barbecue and fried rice. Please hurry and send B2 bombers to liberate us TERFs from the illegitimate Starmer regime.
Idk what we can offer you in exchange. I guess there are a lot of Tumblr fags and teaboos who like British stuff, so they could treat the place like a theme park. Meet a real Scottish junkie!
Somebody tell these faggots about the incorporation doctrine. The text apparently means whatever politically motivated zealots in black robes want it to mean. If they decide it applies to britbongs, OFCOM, or the king's own nutsack, we are protected from all of the above.
Has anyone shown how OFCOM sanctions are enforced? Do they issue with the automatic police enforcement of a normal court judgement, or does OFCOM have to go to a judge and file a complaint that can be contested like a civil contract dispute? If OFCOM decrees issue with anything less than Parliament's full force, that weakens their sovereign immunity claim.
Do they issue with the automatic police enforcement of a normal court judgement, or does OFCOM have to go to a judge and file a complaint that can be contested like a civil contract dispute?
It can directly issue a fine for non-compliance with the law, but that fine can be contested in court. If the site fails to comply, it has to seek a court order to require a site to be blocked rather than simply updating a list. Like everything in this country, it's needlessly complicated and inconsistent.
