A contentious legal battle is unfolding across the Atlantic, as the United Kingdom’s communications regulator, Ofcom, faces accusations of extraterritorial overreach in its enforcement of the Online Safety Act against American online platforms, reigniting a global debate on internet sovereignty and free speech.
At the heart of the dispute is Sanctioned Suicide (SaSu), a discussion forum that allegedly geo-blocked British users yet remains under intense scrutiny, prompting concerns from US legal counsel for sites like 4chan that the UK is attempting to set a global precedent that could impinge on American constitutional protections.
Ofcom’s renewed investigation into SaSu, despite the site’s reported efforts to restrict UK access, signals a more expansive interpretation of its powers than many observers initially anticipated. This move has drawn sharp criticism from US attorney Preston Byrne, who argues the regulator fundamentally misunderstands the internet’s architecture and is politically motivated to extend its reach beyond British borders.
The UK’s Online Safety Act, which began initial implementation in March, mandates that online service providers implement robust safety measures against illegal content, including material related to assisting or encouraging suicide. Ofcom initiated its first investigation under the Act into an unnamed suicide forum in April, later identified as SaSu, citing failures to protect UK users and inadequate responses to information requests. According to Byrne, SaSu responded by geo-blocking the entire UK in late February, a measure Ofcom acknowledges was fully implemented by July, though Byrne asserts it was effective by May.
Despite these reported geo-blocking efforts, Ofcom announced a renewed investigation on November 4, citing evidence from the Samaritans that a “mirror site“ of SaSu was directly accessible to UK users. Ofcom subsequently verified this, noting the mirror site was available until November 6, raising questions about the consistency and effectiveness of SaSu’s restrictions. The regulator reiterated that services choosing to block access must consistently maintain these restrictions and not promote methods for circumvention.
Preston Byrne, who represents SaSu and 4chan *pro bono* in their challenges against Ofcom, contends that the regulator “has no idea how the Internet works“ and has made a “titanic mistake.“ He maintains that the geo-block on both the main site and its mirror was largely effective, attributing any bypasses to the complexities of IP geolocation databases or deliberate efforts by activists. Byrne views Ofcom’s continued pursuit as an “excessive approach“ fueled by political pressure, asserting an aim to curb American free speech rights by demanding compliance beyond simple geographical restrictions.
The ongoing pursuit of SaSu appears deeply influenced by the political climate surrounding the Online Safety Act. Organizations such as the Molly Rose Foundation have actively lobbied Parliament and Ofcom, presenting SaSu as a central justification for the Act’s existence and advocating for stronger enforcement, potentially including a nationwide VPN ban. Byrne suggests SaSu has become a “scapegoat“ for the Act, a “necessary target“ whose persistence challenges the regulatory regime’s credibility.
Byrne warns that the precedent Ofcom seeks to establish—that geo-blocking is insufficient and global compliance is expected—poses a significant threat to American constitutional protections. He states, “Geo-IP blocking the entire UK is no longer enough to comply with the Online Safety Act,“ and Ofcom is “renewing its previous threats of fines, arrest, and imprisonment, against SaSu and its operators – all Americans.“ He has urged the White House, Congress, and state legislators to consider “shield laws“ and trade levers to protect American websites and citizens from what he describes as “bullshit from foreigners.“
The intensifying conflict over SaSu underscores a widening philosophical divide between the UK’s ambitious regulatory framework for online safety and the US commitment to First Amendment protections. The resolution of this and similar cases will likely shape the future of international internet governance and define the boundaries of online speech sovereignty.