UK Government SUED by American Companies for Online CENSORSHIP

This is what Mike Benz was talking about yesterday.

The UK government is attempting to impose its internet regulations on US Citizens by ordering websites to comply with their Online Safety Act (OSA), threatening entrepreneurs with a wide range of coercive threats, including, fines, arrest and up to two years imprisonment for engaging in conduct which is perfectly lawful in the US, where their websites are based.

I experienced something like this in May 2021, when I embedded a Danish video from Bitchute on my site, in which people were holding candles and singing peacefully in the streets of a small town, protesting the vaccine mandates. The Deputy Chief Superintendent of the Copenhagen office of the Rigspolitiet, the Danish National Police emailed me and told me that if I didn’t remove the video, my website would be banned in Denmark – and if I were to ever land in Denmark, I would be arrested and could face 8 years in prison. I checked the extended headers. I checked with my cybersecurity friends. It was real. It felt wrong but I complied immediately and deleted the page. It wasn’t worth fighting for.

Last April, when 4chan and Kiwi Farms failed to to respond to inquiries from Ofcom, the UK’s communications regulator to determine whether they were sufficiently protecting UK users from illegal or “harmful” content, Ofcom imposed fines of £20,000 to each.

Their “legally-binding” Information Notice warned them that “failure to comply…may also constitute a criminal offence.” Furthermore, “failure to provide the requested information in readable form to Ofcom may result in a fine of £18 million or 10% of 4chan’s worldwide turnover, arrest, and/or “imprisonment for a term of up to two years, or a fine (or both).”

Kiwi Farms’ in-house counsel replied to Ofcom with a letter, saying:

“Where Americans are concerned, the Online Safety Act purports to legislate our Constitution out of existence and anybody who tries to do that is an Enemy of America. Parliament does not have that authority. That issue was settled decisively 243 years ago in a war that the UK’s armies lost and they’re not in any position to re-litigate this.”

On August 27, 4chan and Kiwi Farms filed a federal lawsuit in Washington DC, seeking to block Ofcom from enforcing the UK’s Online Safety Act against them on US soil, seeking to restrain Ofcom’s “Egregious violations of Americans’ civil rights, including, without limitation, to the right of freedom of speech.”

Their complaint states that the 4chan Information Notice was not validly served under the US-UK Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and it points out that, similarly to the Federal Reserve Bank, Ofcom is a private corporation:

• Ofcom describes itself as “independent of government and the companies we regulate.”

• Ofcom also says, of itself, that “Ofcom is not funded directly by taxpayers or the Government. Most of Ofcom’s funding comes from fees paid to us by the companies we regulate, to cover the cost of the work we do in their sectors.“

• Ofcom is a private corporation that acts as an official censor of the British state even through it is not an instrumentality of the British state and not entitled to sovereign immunity under 28 USCS § 1604.

It does not look like Ofcom, a private British corporation has the authority to do any of what they’re trying to do.

Most of the companies from which Ofcom intends to seize their funding are headquartered in the United States. They are coming into our jurisdiction, usurping our rights and charging us fees and fines. Preposterous.

The UK could simply block domains that it believes threaten the “safety” of their people, like Denmark threatened to do to me. Instead, they’re trying to extract billions of dollars a year by imposing their imaginary tax on the internet (mostly comprised of US corporations). This is their big play for a UK-centric Censorship Industrial Complex. They must be sniffing glue.

This is a shake-down by demented parasites who don’t know a thing about honest work. They’d rather kill-off and replace their own people than to come up with good ideas about how to make the world a wonderful place.

If the UK wants to block domains put up a big firewall – like China’s – that’s their business but this attempt to assert governance over foreign entities and individuals will not stand.

[[[Meanwhile, the German Deep State has resorted to assassinating their political opponents]]]

The complaint, filed by lawyers from Byrne & Storm and the Coleman Law Firm is asking a US federal court to declare that Ofcom has no authority to impose UK regulatory requirements on businesses operating in the United States without a physical UK presence.

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that Ofcom’s orders are unenforceable in the United States and they request a permanent injunction barring enforcement attempts. They’re also asking the court to bar Ofcom from seeking to impose civil or criminal penalties on US persons for noncompliance with UK regulatory demands.

The complaint says the District of Columbia Court has personal jurisdiction over Ofcom, pursuant to their Long-Arm Statute:

“As Ofcom has committed unlawful acts within the District of Columbia by sending threatening communications to US-based internet companies that interfere with their Constitutional rights and business operations. Additionally, Ofcom is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within the United States through its systematic targeting of US-based internet platforms with its enforcement actions, including, reportedly, larger American social media companies including X, Rumble, and Reddit, which have direct effects within this jurisdiction.”

In short, neither the British government nor a British private corporation can strip US persons of their Constitutional rights.

This case could set a precedent for how US courts treat future attempts by foreign regulators to control the American internet. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could limit Ofcom’s control over US-based services, while a ruling for Ofcom could embolden future cross-border enforcement ploys:

Further down in the complaint, it reads:

• If the Court determines that Ofcom is an instrumentality of the UK, then Ofcom’s activities constitute “commercial activity” carried on in the United States under 28 USCS §1605(a)(2), and Ofcom is not immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States for such activity. Therefore, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act would not bar this suit regardless of whether Ofcom is viewed as a corporation or as a state actor.

• If the Court determines that Ofcom is entitled to sovereign immunity, it does not preclude the Court’s ability to grant the relief sought in this Complaint.

Attorney/Podcaster Robert Gouveia takes us through this lawsuit and other transatlantic internet tiffs.

…

TRANSCRIPT

Robert Gouveia: A lawsuit against the United Kingdom brought by tech companies and our friends, here on the interwebz. You see 4chan, Kiwi Farms, Lolcow, LLC. They’re all gathering together, filing a lawsuit in the District of Columbia, suing the UK Office of Communications.

And what’s happening, unfortunately, to our friends in Europe is they’re trying to censor everybody around the world. And they’ve created this new act, which is now spreading to all of these other entities in the United States saying, “You better comply with us, or we’re shutting you off over here.”

And so, this complaint has been brought in Washington, DC, and it’s brought by our good friends, who you may know and love. I’m sure you do. Our friends right here, Ron Coleman. Ronald D. Coleman here. You know who he is. He’s on the YouTubes, right next door.

So, Coleman, 4chan, Kiwi Farms, a bunch of these internet sites are suing. They say:

(Reading from and interjecting comments about lawsuit scrolling behind him, so below is not an accurate transcript of the lawsuit, which you can see HERE):

“We’re now suing the UK, and here’s why. The internet is a global system of communication between computer servers, a.k.a. a series of tubes, located in data centers around the world.

“Now, despite the internet’s global reach, it is more or less universally acknowledged the internet is predominantly an American innovation, built by American citizens, residents, and companies, and that the United States has the largest and most thriving technology sector of any G7 member state.

“Now, foreign governments, unfortunately, particularly those in Europe, which have not managed to build technology sectors of their own for the past half decade or more, sought to control our internet and hobble American competitiveness through a range of legislative and non-legislative initiatives.

“These foreign governments have threatened American and other non-European entrepreneurs with a wide range of coercive threats, and we don’t appreciate it, including fines, arrests, imprisonment for engaging in conduct which is perfectly lawful in the territories where their websites are based, including in the United States.

“They even arrested the Russian internet entrepreneur, Pavel Durov, who founded Telegram to send him a message when he landed in France, and they opened a criminal file against X, a Texas corporation.”

The French did that. Oh, man!

“The UK recently joined France”

What is going on with them?

“In seeking to apply its domestic laws to the rest of the world,” – because they’re the UK, I guess?

“With the enactment of its censorship law, they passed, called the Online Safety Act 2023, immediately after these provisions entered force, this censorship law was used to target the Free Speech rights of American citizens.”

Here’s what it does:

“The act from the UK grants wide commercial powers to a corporation. That corporation, Ofcom, now uses those powers to communicate written threats to impose ruinous civil penalties and referrals to law enforcement for criminal penalties, including arrests and imprisonment to Americans, if your foreign orders are not obeyed.

“This lawsuit seeks to restrain the UK and its continuing egregious violation of American civil rights, including, without limitation, to the Right of Freedom of Speech.”

And so, this is obviously, absolutely true and directly on-point. And it is a shame that they’re doing that in the UK and elsewhere.

Of course, the question is, “What outcome can we reach, here?” Since this is a foreign government, right? It’s an entirely separate government. They’re going to say, “You don’t have jurisdiction over us. It’s a whole separate country. How are you suing us in this court?” Let’s see where this goes. (Continues reading from lawsuit):

“Now, Plaintiff 4chan is a company. And Delaware was a colony of Great Britain. Until the assembly of the lower counties of Pennsylvania declared itself independent, and they created the State of Delaware. Delaware subsequently was the first state to ratify the Declaration of Independence, the instrument which created the United States of America on July 4th, 1776. Under the terms of the 1783 Treaty of Paris, the Kingdom of Britain officially acknowledged the United States as a sovereign and independent nation.”

Punks! Stop trying to govern us!

“Plaintiff, Lolcow, and Kiwi Farms is a Limited Liability Company. They have a website and although the area that compromises West Virginia was originally part of the British Virginia colony, upon its independence, it constituted the western part of the US Commonwealth of Virginia. And at the time of the Civil War, Virginia was sharply divided on the Secession issue. And so they separated.

“Now, neither Delaware nor West Virginia are part of the UK. Their citizens, both natural and corporate, do not answer to the UK. “

So why are you governing us?

“The UK Office of Communications is a corporation formed in the UK. It was established as a corporate entity under the UK Parliament and passed into law.”

Now, here we get to jurisdiction:

This action arises under the Constitution.

American citizens are being harmed. We have got no place else to go, alright? Our legislature is not going to impact or jump on this.

Trump just made a post about this, saying, “You better knock it off or else we’re going to increase tariffs on you!” We appreciate that. But how else do you vindicate these rights? Like, where are you going to sue, right?

This is the place that makes the most sense, because it’s in DC. You’ve got citizens in the area who are having their rights violated and now, they’re suing under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment, saying the court has jurisdiction over them, alright – over these English comms people.

We [Washington DC] have this thing called a Long-Arm Statute. Man, love this!

“As Ofcom has committed unlawful acts within the District of Columbia; they’re sending threatening communications to US-based internet companies that interfere with their Constitutional Rights and their business operations. And they’re also engaged in substantial and not-isolated activity, a systematic targeting of American platforms, including X, Rumble, Reddit. All of those have direct effects within this jurisdiction and they’re harming us.”

So, venue is also proper, here.

“And these actions are felt by internet companies operating right here in your district. So there’s nowhere else to go, for us.

“Plaintiffs intend that their websites be fully accessible in this District and the conduct requires that now, they take costly measures to pursue this.

And so, some background on these websites:

“You may know 4chan. They run an internet image board, one of the most well-known websites in the world.”

But exercise caution when you visit it!

“4chan’s website, while controversial, operates fully in compliance with the laws of the United States. The website and editorial decisions are protected by the First Amendment and they have no presence or operational infrastructure outside of the US.

“Kiwi Farms is another website that focuses on internet culture, owned by Lolcow and also while controversial, operates fully in compliance with the laws of the US and West Virginia. Now Kiwi Farms also makes editorial decisions. They’ve also got First Amendment protections and more. And Kiwi Farms has no presence, operation, or infrastructure outside the US.

“So what about the people in the UK? Ofcom is a statutory corporation that regulates broadcast in the UK. Their ambitions are to regulate internet communications for the entire world.

Sick behavior. That’s the whole point of the internet. It’s not really that regulated; that you can just kind of have a free exchange of ideas without some people, middlemen, wrecking everything.

Where the websites are based:

“They’ve got no connection to the UK. They state over 100,000 online services are going to be in the scope of the Online Safety Act [It’s for the kids!]

“From the largest social media platforms to the smallest communities and their forums.

“On information and belief, most of the online services that they want to regulate are not even in the UK. They’re in the US! All four of their first social media enforcement targets were SaSu, Gab, Kiwi Farms, and 4chan. They’re American.”

So, how is this not like an act of war? Attacking our companies through your policies?

“Ofcom describes itself as “Independent of government and of the companies we regulate.”

Wow, like our Federal Reserve or something! So they can do whatever they want? They’re not even accountable to the people of the UK? They also say:

“Ofcom is not funded directly by the taxpayers or the government. Most of it comes to fees paid by the companies we regulate to cover the cost of work that we do in their sectors.”

What a scam! Holy crap! So they can just come after you and they say, “You’re breaking the law. Pay us money so that we can exist.”

So, they have to go find these complaints, in order to charge people fees, in order to get money to exist!

“Ofcom is a private corporation. It’s an official censor of the British state.”

When are the British going to throw this crap out?

“Even though it is not an instrumentality of the British state and not entitled to sovereign immunity.

“Ofcom states on its website: ‘We do not censor what people write or post on the internet. Our job is to make sure online services are safe. We’re not responsible for removing online content either. We want a safer life online.'”

Right. They [the Plaintiffs] say their claims are false, OK? Their conception of keeping users safe is a joke. It’s keeping them safe from encountering points of view that they disagree with!

“Ofcom purports to regulate content and interactions where people are voluntarily interacting. They want to control those, because some Ofcom employee has some political whims.

“Ofcom is responsible for administering this whole act and this law purports to regulate online content, globally, including content hosted on US servers, which is an independent state.

“Ofcom is an industry body and they’ve stated their intentions. Their goal is to charge large companies over £250,000,000 Sterling, 2.02% of their worldwide turnover as an Ofcom service fee.”

OK. So the social media companies who actually produce something useful and of value to people, that people like to use, they’re just going to come and skim off the top, right? It’s like a tax on the internet. If you want to have an internet company, you’re going to pay your Ofcom service fee.

“The QWR is set by the UK Secretary of State and once the fee has been granted, everyone’s got to pay it.”

And they give us some details on how this works. Now, apparently they say many, if not most of the companies, which Ofcom will eventually require to fund them are headquartered in the United States.

They’re a commercial company and this is commercial activity and they’re carrying this on in the United States. Therefore, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act doesn’t bar this suit, okay? Because they don’t have immunity. They are volitionally coming to our jurisdiction and usurping our rights from us.

“If the court determines that they are entitled to immunity, it does not preclude the relief that we’re seeking here. Among other things, the UK law purports to require the US companies to keep risk assessments for their compliance with UK law to keep those risk assessments up to date and to carry out other risks assessments of the risk of individuals who are users of the service.”

Wow. So you need to constantly audit your users for the “bad ones”. And of course, we know what type of speech they will limit. Like, I don’t think they’ll be happy if you’re complaining about immigration.

“Notwithstanding its non-censorship claims, moreover, OSA also purports to impose legal duties on our companies.”

And they say, “You better remove that speech from your platform, or else.”

And I would love to have a Digital Bill of Rights, right about now! Something that took our protections in the First Amendment and expanded them even beyond this. We’ll see if that happens.

Now, they give us this concept of “Priority Illegal Content”.

“It’s defined as ‘Content, which is not Priority Illegal, where the victim or the offense is an individual. The offense is created by primary legislation.’

And so they’re articulating how they target the bad speech.

“Plaintiffs, the internet companies, they allow users to post on their website. People post on 4chan anonymously or pseudo anonymously.”

And they’re allowed to do that but section 23 [of the UK’s Online Safety Act] says you can’t do that. Every internet service must “make and keep a written record” of the risk assessment. And the risk assessment includes the user data.

“The purported requirement to carry out these risk assessments is Unconstitutionally compelling them to write a report for you.”

i.e., We have a free speech right not to do a risk assessment of our users and allow them to speak without notifying you about it.

Now, this also requires the internet companies to comply with other orders. They have to disclose the existence of other things. And failure to respond to them or any defective or evasive response, you get punished, fines, criminal charges, six months imprisonment, you’re an internet company not complying with their censorship laws. And they have all been threatened by the UK.

Now, these internet companies have a Constitutional right to refuse to comply with your compelled speech.

“This act makes it a criminal offense to send information, which the sender knows to be false at the time of sending the message, if the person intended the message to cause non-trivial psychological harm or whatever. And it creates a defamation crime, too.”

There’s a defamation crime in the UK. So they’re going to analyze that. Now these types of crimes, defamation crimes, were abolished, permanently abolished in the United States when we ratified the First Amendment in 1791.

There is no defamation criminal charges, you English maniacs!

Section 10.3 of the OSA purports to require plaintiffs to remove conduct which is illegal. And they say this is all “legally-binding”.

So now they operate their websites and they’re being punished. And we also have Section 230 protections.

And here’s how they tried to censor them. So, on April 14th, Ofcom sent a legally-binding information notice to 4chan. So, the UK sends one to the internet companies. “4chan,” they said, “you failed to comply and this may be a criminal offense. And we’re going to fine you $18 million or 10% of all your revenue.”

Get out of here!

“The 4chan information notice threatened 4chan with criminal penalties and it was not even validly-served under the treaties.”

Man, these are smart lawyers!

“On April 30th, Ofcom sent a second letter to 4chan saying, “You didn’t respond.” They said failure to respond to information notice.”

You’re not responding. It’s like a photo radar ticket. It’s great. We didn’t get it in the mail. You got to serve us with that. We’re not responding. That’s not legal advice.

“The 4chan failure to respond to Information Notice letter stated that 4chan was required to comply.”

“You are now under our governance!” Can you imagine? How do they have the gall to send that to an American company? Who are these people? They threatened a penalty of $18 million or “We’re going to take 10% of your business!” Crazy.

Then, 4chan received a letter from Ofcom in which Ofcom advised that they intended to “open investigations into you.” They sent a “final legal notice”. Then, the legal notice said, “you failed to comply and we’re coming after you.”

They said, again, “You didn’t serve us with that. It’s going right in the shredder!”

So on July 9th, Ofcom sent 4chan an email stating its “displeasure” with the fact that 4chan had not responded to its correspondence.

It’s a very 4chan response. Actually, it’s like you’re not responding to that.

So, you know, regarding 4chan community and their compliance, they’re just very upset. You have to talk to us. No, we don’t. Get out of our country.

4chan’s preliminary contravention email says Ofcom is now going to intend issue a provisional notice of contravention because you have a duty under English law and you failed to provide information. And we sent you two notices to which you have no obligation to respond, but we’re mad at you now.

Now, their laws require American, real and corporate citizens to give them information or be threatened with fines, arrests or imprisonments if we don’t work with their laws.

Ofcom sent them a contravention email to multiple inboxes at the domain unrelated to the legal process. So they blew up the whole organization. These people are maniacs, man.

It’s totally inappropriate. I don’t know where they think that they have the authority to do this. 4chan preliminary contravention email was not validly served and then they sent a 33-page so-called provision decision finding that the 4chan community support violated their laws.

Then they threatened to impose $20,000 fines and daily fines of £100 sterling for non-compliance for up to 60 days. They sent them a personnel decision to multiple inboxes and just told everybody about it. The 4chan decision was also not validly served.

Same thing happened with Kiwi Farms. And I’m less familiar with this website. I’ve seen it come up in online conversations, but not spent any time on it.

But I’ve definitely been to 4chan. Says on March 26, Ofcom sent a letter by email to Kiwi Farms. Now, this advisory letter stated that Ofcom is the regulator for online safety and they said they responded.

The Kiwi Farm letter says, “Oh, it doesn’t matter where you or your business are. The new duties will apply to you and your business if the service you provide has links to the UK.”

This is almost like our friends in the UK didn’t understand it when we said, “No taxation without representation.”

We had to throw a bunch of tea into the ocean, into the harbour. And we’ll do it again! Other than being accessible to internet, users in the UK, who voluntarily choose to peruse and interact with this content, Kiwi Farms has no links to the UK.

And the advisory letter also stated that, “Ofcom will be sending you a legally-binding information notice and you must submit a record of the illegal content risk assessment relating to your services.”

You are compelled to generate a report for us, a foreign government. Absolutely insane.

The Kiwi Farms advisory letter further stated that, “If you fail to comply, we’re going to penalize you 18 million or we’re going to steal 10% of your business, too. Then Kiwi Farms blocked the UK users from accessing its website. They said, “Fine, your whole country’s off.”

Then Kiwi Farms, through its counsel replied to the Kiwi Farms advisory letter. In that response, they said that, “Where Americans are concerned, the Online Safety Act purports to legislate our Constitution out of existence and anybody who tries to do that is an Enemy of America. Parliament does not have that authority. That issue was settled decisively 243 years ago in a war that the UK’s armies lost and they’re not in any position to re-litigate this.”

Nice. Kiwi Farms’ website was taken down for maintenance. Site access was restored the same day, but with a UK IP block not yet reactivated as that functionality was not ready to deploy into production. So there was a short gap of availability of the Kiwi Farms website while they’re up and down and they sent a second demand. We saw your website was back up.

In response to this, they said you must tailor your operations to the dictates of a foreign regulatory body that has no authority over it and so what they decided to do is block them again. All UK, you’re offline. When Kiwi Farms received a second Kiwi Farms demand, it was aware that they had threatened other American companies and they sent another statement which said, Providers who fail to introduce measures to UK users from illegal content can expect to and face enforcement action.

They threatened criminal penalties and none of them were ever validly served. So on information and belief, they write, And this is happening constantly. The First Amendment is constantly under attack and it has to always be modified and updated and sanctified lest it be too dangerous.

Safety, get out of here. We’ve already had this debate. You lost.

Intimidating Americans in the free exercise of their constitutional rights, crippling the internet sector. Ofcom also targeted the internet companies to intimidate them and to obeying the UK’s illegal and unconstitutional scheme, paying their theft fee and funding their commercial activities. How self-serving.

Could you imagine that? Imagine if you gave the police like a personal cut of every dollar they collected. Every single traffic ticket, a cop got a cut of that. You think we’d get more traffic tickets that were unjustified? Yeah.

On information and belief, all four of our Ofcom’s first four enforcement actions were all against Americans and they’re basically small and defenseless relative to a foreign government. And so these actions are intended to deliberately undermine the First Amendment and American competitiveness and there’s collateral consequences here. And now we’re being threatened.

Jail, arrest, 10% of their businesses, 18 million dollars and they have not withdrawn these threats. And so what we want you to do judge, we know that you can’t order them to do anything really because it’s a foreign government and they’re not asking them to, okay? They’re just saying, can you just issue a declaration so that our clients are safe, so that our clients are not going to be attacked by the UK just say you can’t come in here and do this then they can have that as justification to say a judge said in America we can continue to do these things. If you and the UK want to block your users or ban us or create a great firewall like China has, go ahead and do it.

But Americans can beam out free speech wherever the hell we want. It’s the internet. It’s a voluntary agreement.

If you don’t want to watch it or it’s too harmful for you, then get off the internet. Grow up a bit. But this is a very nice lawsuit and they want a declaration, right? They just want the courts to come out and say enough already.

They say there’s an actual controversy and they emailed us saying that you’re going to be in trouble. None of this is valid and now they’re facing legal threats. So we want you to say their notices are invalid and they sent a second demand to Kiwi Farms.

None of these are valid service and so we need you to declare that invalid. There’s no reason that we should be complying with them because we’re improperly served. Saying same thing here.

That was Kiwi Farms and then we have a declaratory judgment saying we want you to say that their foreign law is illegal as applicable to the US. These orders would require 4chan from the English law to remove protected speech from its platform, conduct risk assessments and comply with their laws violating all of our rights and they are threatening and asking for coercive action against our clients and we want you to say these orders are unenforceable in the United States and if you just say that, it’s going to resolve the controversy. They can leave us alone and so very nice stuff.

They say make sure it’s unenforceable. It’s going, you know, kind of the same claims for both the several defendants and so ultimately they want a declaration that the attempt to serve was improper. A permanent injunction saying you cannot issue further orders or demands to the plaintiffs, right? And even if they, like maybe the court won’t go that far.

Maybe the court will say, well, I can’t really like injunction them. I can’t really order them to do anything but I can declare and a declaration, right? You could say, well, okay, fine. Just give us, you know, subsection A. Make the declaration.

Maybe don’t give us B. We’d like B for sure, definitely but maybe not but a declaration also orders and demands are unenforceable and inconsistent and this gives some immunity, some protections you could argue, right? Some cover from the court on this issue which I think would be helpful. A permanent injunction in stopping them from enforcing this and any and other further relief as the court deems just and proper signed by Ronald Coleman, Ron Coleman. He’s over on X, not the bodybuilder but you could easily mistake the two because Ron is jacked as hell.

We have this fella, Preston J. Byrne. Don’t want to forget Preston. Shout out to Preston who has also been a part of this battle.

So very happy to see some defense of the American tech companies. Trump has said the same thing. Maybe Congress should act and maybe this is the start of a bigger fracture between our two countries which is unfortunate.

We would love another country to have and revere the First Amendment like we do and if you’re going to be a country that is demanding that we pervert our values and our Bill of Rights then you’re dead to us.