As I said, the offence happens where the harm is suffered. So yes, the case can be brought in London because that's where the harm occurred, but in reality the defendant would usually appear remotely by video. — Jamal

Well that does seem to me strange.

However, can you be sued right now in London for something you say on philosophy forum?

Or northern Scotland or anywhere in the UK if someone feels you've harmed them directly or indirectly through this philosophy forum?

However, can you be sued right now in London for something you say on philosophy forum?

Or northern Scotland or anywhere in the UK if someone feels you've harmed them directly or indirectly through this philosophy forum? — boethius

Yep!

As I said, the offence happens where the harm is suffered. — Jamal

Seems to me really preposterous and obviously the UK courts jettison this doctrine the moment someone sues a UK resident, for saying something while in their home in the UK ... from another country.

Yep! — Jamal

Well then that would be additional reason to incorporate in another jurisdiction, as you'd either appear at distance (and so at a disadvantage) or then need to move around even in the UK!

That's a wildly insane legal doctrine that makes it even easier to harass people due to their speech.

As I said, the offence happens where the harm is suffered. — Jamal

I've done some research quickly on this topic.

So first, whatever the result of the case elsewhere, your local district court would need to agree to enforce it and that can result in re-litigation.

However, all these kinds of cases are essentially defamation cases of clearly identifying and attacking a particular identifiable person, not political or artistic speech cases which is what I'm talking about.

At least in the EU you could not be sued elsewhere for political or artistic speech, a plaintiff would need to come to your district to submit such a claim.

"Where the harm occurred" is targeted harm, not the general harm to the whole world of just bad taste and bad ideas.

I'm pretty confident it would be the same in the UK.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Online Safety Act. If we don't comply then the Office of Communications (Ofcom) can fine us (up to £18 million or 10% of revenue, whichever is higher) or take us down.

It has nothing to do with private individuals suing us because they believe they've been harmed.

Yeah, good point! How did I get dragged into talking about private lawsuits?

I think you have a misunderstanding of the Online Safety Act. If we don't comply then the Office of Communications (Ofcom) can fine us (up to £18 million or 10% of revenue, whichever is higher) or take us down. — Michael

This is one issue.

Who would be reporting you for not following this act is likely private individuals.

This would be in the broad category of consumer protection mechanisms that the government does but a private individual initiates.

There maybe many such mechanisms such as data protection and so on.

It has nothing to do with private individuals suing us because they believe they've been harmed. — Michael

For what a private individual can most easily sue you is service related. You provide a service, client receives that service, the client is unhappy with it and brings you to court. There can be all sorts of legal doctrines used to do so and all sorts of harms claimed. What is clear from the outset is that you're a business, you provide a service, one of your clients is dissatisfied so should probably have their day in court to test if you're business practices are reasonable and lawful (i.e. the threshold is low).

Good answers all around. I had been wondering about some of the same things. I think @boethius raises an interesting general concern, but I don't see that his particular arguments are cogent.

I really don't understand what point you're trying to argue. The facts are that (a) if we are to continue to provide access to UK residents then we must comply with the Online Safety Act and that (b) it is better for a private limited company to risk being fined £18 million than for Jamal to risk personally being fined £18 million.

but I don't see that his particular arguments are cogent. — Leontiskos

Lawsuits don't need to be cogent to get started. That's my first issue.

When conducting business you can easily be sued as doing business creates contractual relationships and all sorts of obligations that people can easily argue you've broken.

So my first concern is can any lawsuit of any kind be dealt with?

Does it make sense to create the potential situation of needing to fly back to the UK, deal with court processes, potentially for years, for a business aiming to make 100 pounds a month?

Even if the case makes no sense and has no merit but a court process is needed to determine that.

That's stress test number 1.

Stress test number 2 would be someone taking particular fanatical displeasure with @Jamal and deciding to carry out some maximally disruptive series of complaints. Will @Jamal have time to deal with that and show in exhaustive detail that the alleged wrongdoing did not occur?

Stress test number 3 is someone wants the assets of the company and decides harassing litigation is the best way to make @Jamal just give up and hand over the business, too much hassle and stress even to deal with.

Stress test number 4 is a case of some actual grounds of breaking some law (perhaps a law we all disagree with but is a law and there is merit to the idea the law has been broken).

I've done some research quickly on this topic.

[...]

I'm pretty confident it would be the same in the UK. — boethius

You did some quick research about some other legal system and then assumed that it would also apply to the UK?

It seems like you are not a legal professional, and you are trying to offer @Jamal legal loopholes to evade UK laws, or else suggesting that he cede ownership of the site to some other individual in some other country. That seems worrisome, and I think you will find that loopholes are not so easy to be had. Further, your arguments don't make sense to me. Many of your suggestions actually seem counterproductive, such as your suggestion that Jamal should ditch what is apparently the UK equivalent of an LLC (limited liability company). As has been pointed out, this would saddle Jamal with more liability than not.

At some point you have to say, "My suggestions have been heard, they have not been heeded, and that's the end of it." Continuing to spin up long posts one after another is not helpful in the overall picture. It is also worth recognizing how much forethought has already gone into this decision on the part of Jamal and others.

I really don't understand what point you're trying to argue. The facts are that (a) if we are to continue to provide access to UK residents then we must comply with the Online Safety Act and that (b) it is better for a private limited company to risk being fined £18 million than for Jamal to risk personally being fined £18 million. — Michael

I'm not arguing against either point.

My point is those two problems can be solved in many different ways, in particular many different jurisdictions and several kinds of incorporations.

There's also many different organizational strategies to do whatever the goals are and also have available the resources to deal with foreseeable eventualities.

There will be pros and cons of any choice.

You did some quick research about some other legal system and then assumed that it would also apply to the UK? — Leontiskos

That would be additional reason in favour of those jurisdictions over the UK jurisdiction.

It seems like you are not a legal professional, and you are trying to offer Jamal legal loopholes to evade UK laws, or else suggesting that he cede ownership of the site to some other individual in some other country. — Leontiskos

That makes no sense.

Zero UK law preventing @Jamal from incorporating where he wants. Of course, many conditions may apply whatever the choice, but having a business in another jurisdiction is not a "loophole".

That seems worrisome. Further, your arguments don't make sense to me. Make of your suggestions actually seem counterproductive, such as your suggestion that Jamal should ditch what is apparently the UK equivalent of an LLC (limited liability company). As has been pointed out, this would saddle Jamal with more liability than not. — Leontiskos

What I've pointed out is that limited liability is not a guarantee, it's a privilege that can be challenged, so something @Jamal must take into consideration. One classic way to find out you have no liability protections is if the plaintiff can demonstrate you created the business primarily to escape liability.

The bankruptcy process does not end with declaring bankruptcy and then managers just brush off their hands and walk away. The managers of a business can then be sued personally by arguing their actions were not lawful or sufficiently reasonable to maintain their limited liability (reckless or negligent etc.).

At some point you have to say, "My suggestions have been heard. They have not been heeded. And that's the end of it." Continuing to spin up long posts one after another is not helpful in the overall picture. — Leontiskos

You must be new to philosophy forum, but you are very welcome here I'm sure.

However to address the substance of your last point:

And that's the end of it." Continuing to spin up long posts one after another is not helpful in the overall picture. — Leontiskos

This is exactly the time in a business where lengthy analysis and deliberations are helpful.

@Jamal right now has a whole spectrum of choices available and a whole community to help implement whatever choice is made.

The best choice can really have a lot of benefits.

Any option is going to have pros and cons.

Simply elaborating a risk does not mean that risk is likely nor that risk is unacceptable.

The point is first to properly understand the risk, evaluate it's likelihood and impact, then see to what extent the risk can be mitigated, and finally to either accept the risk or discontinue whatever it is.

For example, base jumpers evaluate the risk of jumping to their doom, do what they can to mitigate it, and ultimately accept the remaining risk if they choose to jump. Each base jumper has some risk tolerance.

So all the risks I've spelled out may not happen, but seem to me can possibly happen so best to think about it long and hard, be sure of the facts and also how those risks can be reduced.

The Online Safety Act applies to all websites that are accessible in the UK, regardless of where the owners live/are incorporated or where the website is hosted.

What I've pointed out is that limited liability is not a guarantee, it's a privilege that can be challenged, so something Jamal must take into consideration. One classic way to find out you have no liability protections is if the plaintiff can demonstrate you created the business primarily to escape liability. — boethius

To escape an existing legal liability! Like I’m already facing a fine or a lawsuit and I form a company to escape the consequences. So you've misunderstood. It would not apply to TPF.

The Online Safety Act applies to all websites that are accessible in the UK, regardless of where the owners live/are incorporated or where the website is hosted. — Michael

But it's very different if you're incorporated outside the UK.

If you're incorporated outside the UK then it's far less likely for UK courts to simply fine you 19 million pounds, and there's no enforcement mechanism immediately available from UK courts to a business incorporated in another country. The UK can either then complain to you, complain to the country you're actually in, or then shutoff access to the website in the UK.

What the UK couldn't really do is demand foreign small businesses to show up in UK courts. Mostly they would just ignore as much as possible foreign small business websites, and if they can't for some reason then they would threaten to just turn off the website in the UK if the demands aren't satisfied.

If you're not breaking any laws where you actually incorporated then it's not really possible for UK courts to enforce any action against you (other than turn you off in the UK, an action they can enforce).

So being incorporated elsewhere would be a totally different relationship to UK law. Consumer protection mechanisms would not want to deal with complaints against foreign small business, whereas they maybe eager to deal with speech complaints of UK based small businesses to set the example.

Hence, the most impactful thing to reduce the entire spectrum of speech based legal actions, is to be in a country that has super excessive free speech laws and courts just don't hear those cases.

To escape an existing legal liability! Like I’m already facing a fine or a lawsuit and I form a company to escape the consequences. So you've misunderstood. It would not apply to TPF. — Jamal

That is for sure, zero question.

The argument that you've premeditatedly done that, knowing you would create immense liabilities without a reasonable business plan to handle those liabilities, is an argument a plaintiff can make and a judge can listen to, among many other arguments, sound or unsound.

UK courts may want to make an example of you that you can't just make a small company, no intention to grow a business, to do what you were doing before on your personal liability, simply to create immense damages and then walk away.

It wouldn't bother the business community if you aren't making any money and clearly aren't doing business. Plaintiff attorneys can be all like "is @Jamal like really an entrepreneur? Really?

But even if you win the argument, it's still a whole process to be in court, defending yourself, and engage with these kinds of arguments. Which is what happens in court, plaintiff attorneys can make dozens of spurious arguments to force you to deconstruct each one only to eventually get to an argument that actually matters, which you're too exhausted to deal with precisely well enough to win that argument.

A judge won't make your case for you as a business (what a judge may try to do if you're a private individual).

If you're representing yourself you're at a massive disadvantage.

Pure fantasy.

Pure fantasy. — Jamal

If you have some reason to believe you can never be brought to court, that would be one thing. Royal immunity for example.

However, the starting assumption for any business is that litigation can and will occur and so how to minimize the risk and how to deal with it.

Playing whack-a-mole trying to prove each risk scenario I describe can't possibly happen is not a reasonable business planning methodology.

You should sit down and list all the litigation risks you can think of and evaluate the probability of each occurring within a 5 year time span. Feel free to ignore what I consider risks needing consideration, make your own list and your own calculations.

Risk is likelihood multiplied by impact.

So extreme scenarios are less likely but higher impact which is why they need to be considered, if they can happen.

Some freak gust of wind maybe unlikely but could kill one of our dear base jumpers, so they should consider carefully the weather patterns.

Now if you do that exercise and the risk (the entire spectrum of litigation risk) is below your threshold of risk tolerance, then you can entertain the idea of lowering the risk even more but it's not a big issue.

What you're discussing is creating a structure that can be far more easily used to bring you to court (you won't have any special leeway compared to any businessman if you want to do business; there's not "100 pounds a month" business law that stipulates you don't have to deal with things other businessmen have to deal with). Even one court process can take years to resolve, be immensely stressful and costly (even just to get to court if you don't live close by!).

My main point here is before flipping that switch you should really make sober reflection and analysis.

What are the litigation risks? How likely are they to happen? Can you deal with them if they do happen?

At the moment you seem to be engaged in magical thinking that if you're just good faith (from your own perspective) and follow a short list of rules based on your own understanding of them, then you can't be sued.

And what you for certain shouldn't believe is that by making a limited liability business to provide a forum service to forum clients, that you are reducing your risk.

You are greatly expanding it, with essentially no benefits from my point of view.

I think to remedy some confusion here, it should be stated that since Jamal is a citizen of the UK, the Online Safety Act (rather it's potential legal penalties) in fact applies to him personally.

If he were not a citizen of the UK, all the UK authorities could do is block his website from being visited (served ie. "made accessible") by any UK telecommunications provider. He both acknowledges as a UK citizen he could be liable and further acknowledges that regardless of the prior fact, this website is desired to be accessible for those in the UK, of which a substantial amount of posters hail from.

Otherwise, it would be like if I was from Namibia, Africa and made a website in my country about African food. If some person from the UK who has African heritage wanted to visit my site but could not without requiring a citizen of another country to accept a different country's rules, laws, and systems to simply visit and learn about one's own heritage, that could be woven as a form of illegally depriving a citizen of widely-established rights of cultural heritage.

Pure fantasy. — Jamal

Yep.

Incidentally, this is a good test case for why I favor posting limitations (e.g. one cannot post twice in X amount of time, or something like that).

You wrote a of 33 words, and received a much a much of 224 words 5 minutes later. Then you wrote a post, and received of 291 words 10 minutes later. Of those two posts, @boethius is averaging 34 words a minute and posting constantly (including short after-thought posts). In my opinion this sort of thing is what leads to low quality discussions, and this case does not seem to be an exception.

@boethius is just trying to look out for the best interest of @Jamal, and as a result, all of us. Misguided or not. Why so authoritarian all of a sudden? Are you trying to emulate someone? :chin:

I thought you were a free spirit. Making web extensions and CSS modifications and what not. This is highly uncharacteristic of you. I understand the stakes (and emotions in general) are high, but for goodness sake my friend, let us not forget who we are and what we stand for. :smile:

boethius is just trying to look out for the best interest of Jamal, and as a result, all of us. Misguided or not. Why so authoritarian all of a sudden? Are you trying to emulate someone? :chin: — Outlander

And maybe the current plan is the best one, if we considered other plans there would be negatives in those too.

For example, my plan of get @Benkei to legally administrate in his jurisdiction, may run into the little problem of @Benkei never in a million years ever agreeing to that.

However, it's only in elaborating different plans, subjecting them to critical scrutiny, that we can be somewhat confident what the best plan is.

There's also plan don't-incorporate.

The reason @Jamal needed a structure to do contracting work is that it greatly simplifies other businesses hiring his services and transferring him the money.

In this case, if we're talking about really small amounts, then it should be seriously considered to just keep things private property, hobby level activity, no services, no clients, no trade registry duties and liabilities.

If a structure is to be made, I would seriously recommend it's because there's some plan to bring in significant funds to achieve more goals.

So that's the basic framework I'd propose as a starting point of analysis.

I'm also not drawing any conclusions for @Jamal here, as his risk tolerance could anyways be super high as well as his willingness to fly back to the UK anytime to deal with whatever it is. Likewise, the negatives in the viable alternative plans could be deal breakers whereas dealing with UK litigation is not. Some analysis is required to be confident about any conclusion.

People with too much time on their hands "looking out for the best interests of others" cause a great deal of problems in the world. Two pages of ill-informed posts on a tangential topic seems plenty sufficient here. And it would not be "authoritarian" to encourage people to think a bit before posting. Pointlessly and endlessly fatiguing moderators is not something that should be encouraged.

Giving advice unasked is rude. Doing it over and over for two pages is highly objectionable.

It sounds to me as if Jamal and others have thought through these problems much more thoroughly and with much more research than @boethius has:

It is also worth recognizing how much forethought has already gone into this decision on the part of Jamal and others. — Leontiskos

I myself had thought about inquiring about this issue, but I abstained because it is not my place. Now that it has taken place I can say with confidence that the people who made the decision did so responsibly, namely by carrying out the requisite research and planning. This is not surprising given the commitment they have to the website.

@Jamal summed it up aptly:

Rather than an argument against forming a UK company, this seems to be an argument against existing at all. — Jamal

The logical conclusion of someone who endlessly points to fantastical risks and counterfactuals is that one should not have a forum at all.

People with too much time on their hands "looking out for the best interests of others" cause a great deal of problems in the world. — Leontiskos

Lots of people doing lots of things cause vast amounts of problems, equally. Do you really know for certain what is the cause of every great suffering? No, just what you're told (or the immediate observable factors that are usually but symptoms of true causes). I understand your sentiment those who proclaim to care about others enough to speak out about what's right or "best" are at the end of the day only human beings, and human beings are deceptive and generally predictable as far as being self-serving and generally untrustworthy. That doesn't mean those who keep to themselves and who don't actively try to offer suggestions to improve the world are somehow immune or the opposite. The statement quoted is just not very helpful. It doesn't forward any argument nor does it paint the person you're talking about in a non-favorable light. Some might call this... wait for it... "ill-informed!" :razz:

Furthermore, what makes you think someone who has access to an Internet-connected device and can type out a reply in 20-30 seconds a few times in a row has "too much time on their hands?" Typing "long" posts is literally like breathing to some intelligent folk. Even if it may take you a while to read it (or like I suspect may be possible, having to re-read it only to get frustrated to no avail of understanding it). Perhaps they've earned their free time.

Two pages of ill-informed posts on a tangential topic seems plenty sufficient here. — Leontiskos

There's lots of valuable and generally correct information as far legal philosophy he brought up, whether or not it applies to @Jamal's specific situation or not. This is considered noble effort. Relevant discussion. Do you think he's purposely giving bad information so as to sabotage TPF for some hidden or unknown agenda? If not, why concern yourself with a discussion between two people either one of the involved parties could have (and probably would have preferred) privately messaged?

It just seems odd to me, as if you're trying to "shut down" a conversation after the two relevant parties basically agreed it to have already been over.

And it would not be "authoritarian" to encourage people to think a bit before posting. Pointlessly and endlessly fatiguing moderators is not something that should be encouraged. — Leontiskos

With all due respect, the person you're criticizing seems to be on at least an equal level of communication and understanding of not only logic but real world knowledge as yourself. And that's being quite generous in your favor.

Giving advice unasked is rude. — Leontiskos

It is not the lowest form of expression, opinion, or "advice", if the person sees a danger, whether real or not (and it many places, it is), and as an act of compassion and concern expresses why he thinks so to someone who he wishes to avoid said danger. This is basic human empathy. Literally the opposite of rudeness. Concern for fellow man is the cornerstone of all civilized society. Especially in a purposefully pinned thread that the site owner specifically made to "get feedback" from other posters from.

What country are you from that makes all the above disappear in favor of blind following toward a total stranger who just so happens to be in charge? I seriously need to know.

Doing it over and over for two pages is highly objectionable. — Leontiskos

Bruh. It's called a conversation. One makes a concern. The person responds to the concern. And the person responds in turn. It goes back and forth constituting a free exchange of ideas and opinion. If you were desired as a moderator, you'd have been asked already. End of watch bro. Time to live life as a normal civilian/poster. Come on, you can do it. :smile:

It just seems odd to me, as if you're trying to "shut down" a conversation after the two relevant parties basically agreed it to have already been over. — Outlander

Mmmk, Outlander. :roll:

What country are you from that makes all the above disappear in favor of blind following toward a total stranger who just so happens to be in charge? I seriously need to know. — Outlander

If you seriously needed to know you could have tried exerting an ounce of research effort by pulling up my bio. @Jamal is not "a total stranger who just so happens to be in charge." He is the guy who has dedicated countless hours and lots of money to TPF, and has spent over a year researching a cutting edge, new platform which will be even more expensive. It's nothing short of a miracle that there exist people like Jamal to run sites like this.

I've never said that objections are impermissible, but there really is such a thing as too much.

Thanks, Leon, I appreciate the vote of confidence.

Questions and objections are very welcome—they help me publicly explain, for the benefit of other members who might be wondering the same things, what's been going on and the reasoning behind it.

But if @boethius was, as @Outlander said, "just trying to look out for the best interest of Jamal, and as a result, all of us," you have to wonder why he responded to every correction with an evasion such as "Well the main point is that..." Perhaps he got carried away. In the process he has damaged the thread and forced me to spend 7 or 8 hours researching and writing about the law, all to satisfy what appears to be idle fear-mongering from a single outlandishly prolific member. This is destructive, not constructive.

But I don't want to attack anyone; I just want to make it clear that this thread is not a platform for anyone to come along and flood it with runaway speculation. I want to keep space for genuine questions from everyone else.

So please, @boethius, no more. You've had your say, to put it mildly.