Comment by amiga386
1 day ago
> If Ofcom permissibly determines that Wikipedia is a Category 1 service, and if the practical effect of that is that Wikipedia cannot continue to operate, the Secretary of State may be obliged to consider whether to amend the regulations or to exempt categories of service from the Act. In doing so, he would have to act compatibly with the Convention. Any failure to do so could also be subject to further challenge. Such a challenge would not be prevented by the outcome of this claim.
Basically, DENIED, DENIED, DENIED. Ofcom can keep the loaded gun pointed in Wikipedia's face, forever, and make as many threats as it likes. Only if it pulls the trigger does Wikipedia have a case.
Wikipedia should voluntarily remove itself from the UK entirely. No visitors, no editors.
> Wikipedia should voluntarily remove itself from the UK entirely. No visitors, no editors.
No, it should remove servers, employees and legal presence from the UK. It's not their job to block UK people from accessing it just because the UK regime want them to. Let the regime censors actually put an effort to block them. Let them make a Great Firewall of the UK, why make it easy for them?
Because, as someone living in the UK, the only way people here are going to realise what's going on and apply meaningful pressure to the government is if these organisations force us to. And because once they've given up on one country, they'll give up on the rest just as easily.
Is there backlash for this sort of thing? When they did their blackout thing some years back, a lot of people who were sympathetic to the cause were also highly annoyed at the disruption to their workflows, to the point that if it had gone on much longer it might have backfired on Wiki. I've seen similar affects with protesters blocking roads and such. I always wonder if it's just a small minority or if it happens more widespread
5 replies →
It'll only bring more clicks to Google's AI summary. The people who care about Wikipedia itself probably already know about the government plans.
Sure, but letting the UK government block wikipedia makes things _much_ clearer for everyone.
If they don't geoblock UK visitors then every person known to be involved with the operation of wikipedia potentially becomes an international fugitive and if they ever land on UK soil (or perhaps even Commonwealth soil), they could be jailed.
Not a fun way to live.
[citation needed] because that’s not how the OSA works.
The UK would only get away with such an arrest if the US would allow it, in which case Wikipedia is already fucked.
It's a lot harder to uproot people than servers.
https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/Staff
The ways things are gong in the world they will need to bite that bullet sooner or later, and not just for the UK.
They don't need to make anything - that capability has been there for years. It was mostly used to block sites with IIoC, but they also blocked access to various piracy related sites and things like that.
What does IIoC stand for?
I generally agreed but this depends entirely on the US's willingness to cooperate with UK authorities. This would be the DOJ, FTC, etc. I dont think it would go straight the judiciary although someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong.
IANAL, but international law precedent has allowed countries to prosecute web services for providing services to a country where that service is illegal. A French NGO successfully sued Yahoo! for selling Nazi memorabilia, a crime in France, despite Yahoo! being a US company [0], and this was upheld by US courts.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LICRA_v._Yahoo!
Nitpick: International law is treaties between countries, the UN, customs like diplomatic immunity, etc. Here it was just about US and French domestic law.
1 reply →
> and this was upheld by US courts.
No it wasn't. It was overturned on appeal. But Yahoo stopped selling Nazi memorabilia anyway.
2 replies →
This is the part that gets me intrigued. It's quite difficult to parse, having so many conditionals... ifs, mays, woulds, "subject to further challenge", etc
It doesn't seem (to me) as definitive as some claim.
Hopefully, this ambiguous language opens the door for further challenges that may provide case law against the draconian Online Safety Act.
Pulling Wikipedia out of the UK would make a statement, but it'd also hand the government an easy win, I think
Better would be to pull operations out of the UK but keep serving UK citizens without restrictions until the UK itself moves to block it.
It's sad, but let's hope the UK blocks it. Perhaps someone finally understands the severity of this "law".
But this is how the law works? Even in the USA, the Supreme Court doesn't act on hypotheticals. They wait until someone brings an actual case.
Ofcom haven't ruled Wikipedia is Category 1. They haven't announced the intention to rule it Category 1. The Category 1 rules are not yet in effect and aren't even finalised. They aren't pointing any gun.
Wikipedia have a case that they shouldn't be Category 1 if that happens. But they went fishing in advance (or to use an alternative metaphor, they got out over their skis).
What else is the court to do but give a reassurance that the process will absolutely be amenable to review if the hypothetical circumstance comes to pass? That is what the section you are quoted says.
First, it's a statutory instrument that ministers will amend if it has unintended, severe consequences.
Second, the rules in question have not been written yet and they are being written in conjunction with industry (which will include Wikipedia). Because Ofcom is an industry self-regulation body.
That's not how lawmaking works in the UK.
I remember an example where the UK Government decided it's OK to rip CDs you own (no, really, it wasn't legal until then), and codified that in law. The parasites that run the UK Music trade organisation appealed and found that the UK had not sufficiently consulted them before deciding to make the law.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-33566933
So - ripping is completely illegal in the UK. Always has been, always will be. Never rip a CD, not even once. Keep paying all your fucking money to the UK Music member corporations and never think you own anything, not even once.
But it illustrates that the UK's law-making is subject to judicial review, and government cannot make laws or regulations without consulting those affected by them how much of a hardship it constitutes to them. The judge here is merely saying we haven't seen the harm yet, and Ofcom can keep threatening indefinitely to cause harm, Wikipedia only have a case when they do cause harm. By contrast, passing the law making CD ripping legal, UK Music argued, using an absolute load of bollocks they made up, that it immediately caused them harm.
It's not that simple. The law the BBC article is referring to[1] was a regulation, i.e. secondary legislation, passed by resolution. Had it been primary legislation, the courts wouldn't have been able to overturn it (Parliament is sovereign).
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2014/9780111112700
> But it illustrates that the UK's law-making is subject to judicial review
This is misleading. Actual primary legislation isn't subject to judicial review. The only exception to that is a Judge can declare legislation incompatible with the ECHR - but even then that doesn't actually nullify the law, it only tells the government/parliament they need to fix it.
The bit that is subject to review is _secondary_ legislation, which is more of an executive action than lawmaking. It's mostly a historical quirk that statutory instruments count as legislation in the UK.
> government cannot make laws or regulations without consulting those affected by them how much of a hardship it constitutes to them
This is at best disingenuous.
There is no general requirement on government to consult. It is often referred to in various Acts, which are binding. There is a common law expectation that if the government has made a clear promise to consult that they have to.
But since the Glorious Revolution, parliament has proved to be supreme. It may have to be explicit in the laws it passes, but it can literally overrule itself as needed. Pesky EU human rights legislation is just a mere vote away from being destroyed.
A lot of what you are posting is not true. Take for instance your claim that "Ofcom is an industry self-regulation body"
Ofcom is a government-approved industry regulator, strictly speaking.
It is what in the UK gets called a Quango. A quasi-non-government-organisation.
It is not a government body. It is not under direct ministerial control.
It gets some funds from government (but mostly through fees levied on industry):
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c8eec40f0b...
But it operates within industry as the industry's regulator, and its approach has always been to operate that way (just as the other Of- quangos do).
Here is what appears to be their own take on it.
https://www.ofcom.org.uk/siteassets/resources/documents/cons...
This seems pretty consistent with what I said -- it is essentially a self-regulation body, promoting self-regulation but backed by statutory powers/penalties.
Now what else is untrue?
ETA: rate-limited so I am not able to properly respond to the below. Bye for now.
3 replies →
>Even in the USA, the Supreme Court doesn't act on hypotheticals.
Yes. To rephrase it, they cannot act until it's already too late, and the damage has already been done.And we wonder why things are so broken.
What alternative would you propose? How much additional workload would it create for the court system and how would you manage it considering their existing responsibilities?
1 reply →