Ofcom’s Investigation: Our Full Response and Position on UK Jurisdiction

[Mircea]

You know what else is linked to suicide usually? An unavailable or harmful support network.
People let their loved ones slip through the cracks then blame this site for providing a painless solution to a problem that would be there anyway regardless of the existence of this place.

And sadly some still think it's because we live in a fairytale where government oligarchs care for ordinary people for some magical reason. In reality they're scared that if more people exit, they'll be left without "slaves" to build their mansions or animate the corpse of a world that died years ago. Sucks to tell all those "caring" politicians and CEO's around the world, but tying to keep people alive by force isn't going to give you more or cheaper products, you can stop caring for us and prepare those doomsday bunkers you've been renovating lately.

 

[dweams]

I wish you weren't focussing your case from the US 'freedom of speech' vs UK 'foreign government is trying to silence a U.S-based forum' angle. It feels Trump-ish.

It's not "Trump-ish". It's literally exactly what they're doing. The UK government is basically saying that their law is superior to those of every other nation. I understand that you want to defend your country, but sugarcoating their actions doesn't help anyone.

 

[M19R]

I wish you weren't focussing your case from the US 'freedom of speech' vs UK 'foreign government is trying to silence a U.S-based forum' angle. It feels Trump-ish. I am writing from the UK. But I kind of understand why you might want to do so from the perspective of a more likely positive outcome from a legal perspective.

For me it is a moral argument. It is a case of 'people' in the UK - including the BBC, Ofcom and, sadly, even the Samaritans, as well as the 'general public' and bereaved loved ones, misunderstanding what the suicidal mind is like and what it sometimes needs.

I feel your case would be more convincing, on a human level, if it were more aligned to the argument given by some of your supporters on X (a platform I generally dislike). For example: 'This forum supported me during my darkest time — when no UK mental health service was accessible. It kept me alive. The state of mental health services in the UK is shocking. That is what needs addressing, not this' and: 'I still don't understand how we haven't evolved past hasty generalization. Everyone acts like children, wanting to hate faster than just trying to understand or critically think. There were maybe a few people who promoted suicide and self harm, and they're generalizing us all.'

It is complicated, nuanced, dark, not where 'normal' people go.

The UK is (relatively) a good place. It has got it wrong in this instance in my opinion. I don't want to use a VPN. I have no shame in or fear of what I am saying.

I would like to know who the woman in Merton (London) is who has been arrested 'on suspicion of intentionally doing an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide of another' [BBC} is, and who her lawyers are.

Have you even seen the Trump administration? They dont give a single shit about free speech. The idiot had to be told by judges that he couldn't make it illegal to insult him online.

 

[imsotired35]

I wonder if this is because of the tiktoker who got SN after being on here. It's been on the news.

 

[Mircea]

I wonder if this is because of the tiktoker who got SN after being on here. It's been on the news.

To me it's because of one thing realistically: The more unbearable this world gets, the more people want out. The same "leaders" making the world unbearable and causing this to begin with don't like it, as it means they have fewer slaves to prop up the illusion of the dead world and create products for them. That's the result of handing entire nations and ultimately the planet to angry children who get to do whatever they want with no real oversight or checks and balances.

I can already see a business style meeting with government officials and large corporations, analyzing graphs and charts in an office; One of them takes the stand and says "if we ban this suicide forum across the nation, there's a 5% chance that there will be a 1% reduction in deaths, which should translate to roughly 0.1% more economic output over the next decade". Everyone else nods their heads in agreement and takes notes.

Think I may be going too far? In Russia they're trying to criminalize online discussion about not having children. It's similar to their attacks on the LGBT community: If you even suggest some people shouldn't have kids, you're labeled as part of some "child-free extremist group" and treated like a literal terrorist organization. If you peek just a little beyond the petty facade, it doesn't take a genius to tell what's really going on.

 

[Chili]

Here's the situation: On 8 April 2025, we received a formal letter from the UK communications regulator, Ofcom, informing us that they had officially opened an investigation into Sanctioned-Suicide.net under the UK's Online Safety Act 2023. While we typically do not comment on regulatory interactions, we feel it is necessary to inform the community of what is happening and how we are responding.

Timeline of Events & Our Response

Let's walk through the sequence that led to this point, so the situation is fully understood:

• March 3, 2025: Ofcom issued a legally binding information request under the Act, demanding a copy of our illegal content risk assessment by March 31. We responded and requested an extension, which they granted.
• March 27–April 1, 2025: We exchanged multiple emails with Ofcom. In these, we clearly stated that we do not operate in the UK, do not target UK users, and are not subject to UK law. We emphasized our platform is U.S.-based, with no infrastructure, operations, or revenue connected to the United Kingdom.
• April 1, 2025: Ofcom insisted that our site is still "capable of being used in the UK" and therefore within their scope, despite most UK ISPs already blocking access to us at the behest of the UK government. They also claimed that our platform posed a "material risk of significant harm" to UK users, though they failed to provide any concrete data or evidence to support this claim.
• April 4, 2025: We formally replied, reiterating that we would not comply with further requests and that their claims of jurisdiction were invalid. We requested they withdraw the information notice.
• April 7, 2025: They responded again, repeating their earlier assertions and pushing for compliance before the final deadline. We did not submit the requested material, and on April 8, 2025, they formally announced the investigation.

Ofcom's Allegations

In their opening letter, Ofcom claims we may have failed to comply with the following obligations under the Online Safety Act:

• Section 9: Conducting and keeping records of an "illegal content risk assessment"
• Section 10: Taking proactive safety measures to mitigate harm from "priority illegal content"
• Sections 20 & 21: Providing clear reporting and complaint mechanisms
• Section 23: Maintaining adequate documentation
• Section 102(8): Responding to an information notice

Their justification for opening this investigation is their belief that some UK residents may still be able to access the site, despite ISP-level blocks, and that content on the platform may present a risk of harm to those users.

Our Legal Position: No Jurisdiction

We have made it absolutely clear to Ofcom: Sanctioned-Suicide.net is not within the scope of UK law. Their continued insistence on jurisdiction is legally indefensible and raises serious concerns about regulatory overreach. To clarify:

• We are a U.S.-based platform. We have no offices, infrastructure, or staff in the UK.
• We are not commercially active in the UK. We generate no revenue from UK users and do not advertise or market our services there.
• Access from the UK is already severely restricted, with most major UK ISPs blocking access due to political pressure.
• We do not "target" the UK under any meaningful interpretation of the law.

Their standard—that a site being "capable of being accessed in the UK" constitutes a jurisdictional link—is dangerously broad. Under that logic, any site on the global internet could fall under Ofcom's purview, regardless of whether it targets the UK or not. This is not only unsustainable—it flies in the face of international legal norms and principles of digital sovereignty.

Selective Enforcement and Inconsistent Standards

We also question the proportionality and focus of Ofcom's actions.

There are numerous social media platforms operating within the UK and profiting from UK users that host massive volumes of self-harm or suicide-related content—often algorithmically recommended. These services are not subject to the same degree of scrutiny or threat of enforcement, despite their real-world influence and scale.

Meanwhile, Sanctioned-Suicide.net is a non-commercial, volunteer-run discussion platform with strict moderation rules against explicitly unlawful content. We do not profit from user activity, and we do not tolerate content that encourages or incites illegal acts. Yet we are being singled out for enforcement based on the premise that some UK residents may be circumventing government restrictions to access our site.

U.S. Law and Executive Order 14149

We have also pointed out to Ofcom that their actions may conflict with U.S. national policy.

In Executive Order 14149, issued by President Donald J. Trump, the United States declared:



This means we are legally and constitutionally obligated to resist foreign attempts to suppress protected speech originating from U.S. soil. If Ofcom proceeds with threats of fines or attempts to pressure U.S.-based service providers to deplatform us or block our infrastructure, we will refer this matter to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, as well as Congressional oversight committees for diplomatic escalation and possible retaliatory trade actions.

Where We Stand

• We will not be submitting any internal documentation to Ofcom.
• We reject the assertion that the Online Safety Act applies to our platform.
• We will continue to moderate our site based on our own standards, not foreign laws we are not subject to.
• We have filed a formal procedural complaintunder Section 9 of Ofcom's Online Safety Enforcement Guidance regarding:
  • Their baseless jurisdictional claim
  • Their failure to provide supporting evidence
  • Their use of intimidation tactics
  • Their selective enforcement
  • Their lack of transparency in cross-border regulatory matters

Final Word

We are committed to maintaining an open platform for discussion, subject to our own moderation standards and the laws that apply to us here in the United States.

We will not kowtow to foreign governments attempting to regulate American speech beyond their borders. The principles of digital sovereignty, free expression, and jurisdictional restraint matter—and we will defend them.

If Ofcom or the UK government escalates this further, we are prepared to meet the challenge head-on.

Y'all are going to have to forgive me I'm real bad off, I haven't drank this much in a while but like why what's their problem? I feel like they just attack big SCARY forums like sUiCIDe forums. They just want to get some big wins for these stupid companies so they can attack someyhink else they don't think the public will like. These people have never been to this forum. Ever. They don't even know what happens here. I for real come here every time I'm bad off which is so frequent. I can't afford treatment, I am just suffering every day. Suffering. It's so easy dying and I think about it every day. Just knowing there is a quick out helps so much. Am I going to kill myself? Yeah who knows but it won't be because of a website. Ithis website has helped me more times than I can count. Banning a website won't miraculously cure me, it just isolated me and forced me to talk to people who literally do not understand, in a basic level at all. Wanting to die is something so unexplainable. I don't want to be told it's going to get better, because it sure as hell hasn't for 6 years, go to the doctor I can't afford, or give me lukewarm uncomfortable answers because what do you say if you've never been there?? God the Internet has gotten to be such a useless place, sure I'll just ask ai if I should die

 

[6138]

To me it's because of one thing realistically: The more unbearable this world gets, the more people want out. The same "leaders" making the world unbearable and causing this to begin with don't like it, as it means they have fewer slaves to prop up the illusion of the dead world and create products for them. That's the result of handing entire nations and ultimately the planet to angry children who get to do whatever they want with no real oversight or checks and balances.

I can already see a business style meeting with government officials and large corporations, analyzing graphs and charts in an office; One of them takes the stand and says "if we ban this suicide forum across the nation, there's a 5% chance that there will be a 1% reduction in deaths, which should translate to roughly 0.1% more economic output over the next decade". Everyone else nods their heads in agreement and takes notes.

Think I may be going too far? In Russia they're trying to criminalize online discussion about not having children. It's similar to their attacks on the LGBT community: If you even suggest some people shouldn't have kids, you're labeled as part of some "child-free extremist group" and treated like a literal terrorist organization. If you peek just a little beyond the petty facade, it doesn't take a genius to tell what's really going on.

I think you're right. It's not just the UK, or the US, or Trump, or Biden, or whatever, it's our entire society.

EVERYONE now has an agenda, has a message, has a narrative, and if you don't agree with it, they will use whatever power they have to silence you.

The Conservatives try to silence the Pro-LGBT people, the liberals try to silence the "non-woke, non politially correct" people, but everyone is fighting to control the narrative.

Unfortunately, we're on the receiving end of it: Noone is going to defend the rights of a group of people who believe that suicide is a persons choice.

Have you even seen the Trump administration? They dont give a single shit about free speech. The idiot had to be told by judges that he couldn't make it illegal to insult him online.

And, respectfully, do you think a liberal president would have been any different?

 

[VoidButterfly]

Your decision to just block the uk really sucks. You've just told every country in the world that the uk approach works. Appreciate you've got to cover your own arses but yeah, is disappointing.

 

[Mircea]

Your decision to just block the uk really sucks. You've just told every country in the world that the uk approach works. Appreciate you've got to cover your own arses but yeah, is disappointing.

The owners of this platform don't need to block the UK: If they're not based in the UK, the UK can't do anything to them. Let their government tell its ISP's to block the platform themselves if they're that stupid.

 

[sadfemboy:(]

Very disappointing news.

 

[SilentSadness]

I hate the UK government!

 

[locked*n*loaded]

It's sure going to be hard on FuneralCry, unless she has the ability to use a vpn.


How go from this:

We will not kowtow to foreign governments attempting to regulate American speech beyond their borders. The principles of digital sovereignty, free expression, and jurisdictional restraint matter—and we will defend them.

To this:

UK Access Block Notice: Beginning July 1, 2025, this site will no longer be accessible from the United Kingdom. This is a voluntary decision made by the site's administrators. We were not forced or ordered to implement this block. If you're located in the UK, we recommend using a VPN to maintain access.

?????????????????????????

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

It's sure going to be hard on FuneralCry, unless she has the ability to use a vpn.


How go from this:

We will not kowtow to foreign governments attempting to regulate American speech beyond their borders. The principles of digital sovereignty, free expression, and jurisdictional restraint matter—and we will defend them.

To this:

UK Access Block Notice: Beginning July 1, 2025, this site will no longer be accessible from the United Kingdom. This is a voluntary decision made by the site's administrators. We were not forced or ordered to implement this block. If you're located in the UK, we recommend using a VPN to maintain access.

?????????????????????????

I don't blame the admins of SaSu and don't consider it a case of simply caving in. Bitchute did the same thing and explained why in their statement. What the OFC is doing is threatening to litigate their opponents into oblivion. What they can do is tie up regional ISPs and hosting in court so they are inclined to drop SaSU + regulatory and compliance fees & fines to the point that it's infeasible to run this site any more. That's the power of deep pockets (funded by taxpayers) and full time lawyers (also funded by taxpayers) at the states disposal (or parliament or however they do it there).

I do find SaSu's statement of "not being forced" less than genuine. I suspect there's an element of coercion in the making of this decision.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

I don't blame the admins of SaSu and don't consider it a case of simply caving in. Bitchute did the same thing and explained why in their statement. What the OFC is doing is threatening to litigate their opponents into oblivion. What they can do is tie up regional ISPs and hosting in court so they are inclined to drop SaSU + regulatory and compliance fees & fines to the point that it's infeasible to run this site any more. That's the power of deep pockets (funded by taxpayers) and full time lawyers (also funded by taxpayers) at the states disposal (or parliament or however they do it there).

I do find SaSu's statement of "not being forced" less than genuine. I suspect there's an element of coercion in the making of this decision.

View attachment 170213

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't a clue about UK laws, its Constitution, if there even is a Constitution, the civil rights afforded to its citizens, etc. Here in the US we have our Constitution that spells out rights afforded to our citizens, such as the right to privacy and free speech, amongst others. We, also, have checks and balances in place in order to make sure that when laws are passed that they don't overstep boundaries that the Constitution provides. One of these checks and balances is the ACLU, the American Civil Liberties Union. When laws get passed, if they go too far, groups like the ACLU will file lawsuits in our courts to get these laws nullified. It can be a slow process sometimes, though.

Doesn't the UK have these types of organizations that come forward and fight to overturn unconstitutional laws in the courts when the types of draconian laws like we are talking about are passed? Who looks out for the civil liberties of the UK citizens? What are UK's equivalent of the US checks and balances?

 

[Kali_Yuga13]

Who looks out for the civil liberties of the UK citizens?

No one apparently. UK has become draconian in it's heavy handed censorship in the last 5-10 years. UK FAR exceeds Russia in censorship arrests, like 3300 vs 400 in 2024 and that's with Russia on a war footing with much tighter controls (in theory) to combat subversion, dissention, demoralization and opensource intel leaks.

Brittan's always been weird about communications. You need to pay for a tv license and as I understand the post WW2 history they practically made it mandatory to own a tv and had some kind of program to refurbish old tv's and give them to the poor so everyone could be fed propaganda. IDK the details about that, just something I've heard before.

Ofcom also took over Postcomm regulation in 2011 so that probably has something to do with the SN welfare checks.

The conservative party pushed back on Ofcom wanting to vastly limit it's powers equating it to a quango. That term means quasi-NGO which is an organization that looks independent but is actually enmeshed with government.

I don't know of anything like the ACU there. I do know there's grass roots people going after traffic cameras and cell towers because they're unhappy with the surveillance state.

 

[leloyon]

Your decision to just block the uk really sucks. You've just told every country in the world that the uk approach works. Appreciate you've got to cover your own arses but yeah, is disappointing.

Yeah, it's basically just saying, "Hah! You can't block us, we'll block ourselves for you!"

The owners of this platform don't need to block the UK: If they're not based in the UK, the UK can't do anything to them. Let their government tell its ISP's to block the platform themselves if they're that stupid.

Basically this.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I don't blame the admins of SaSu and don't consider it a case of simply caving in. Bitchute did the same thing and explained why in their statement. What the OFC is doing is threatening to litigate their opponents into oblivion. What they can do is tie up regional ISPs and hosting in court so they are inclined to drop SaSU + regulatory and compliance fees & fines to the point that it's infeasible to run this site any more. That's the power of deep pockets (funded by taxpayers) and full time lawyers (also funded by taxpayers) at the states disposal (or parliament or however they do it there).

I do find SaSu's statement of "not being forced" less than genuine. I suspect there's an element of coercion in the making of this decision.

View attachment 170213

censorship, restriction , oppression, injustice, control especially of suicide discussion and suicide methods is going to increase and get worse. They will be using what u listed and the advancing technology like Ai to censor, control, and oppress us more especially to censor suicide speech and restrict suicide methods to keep us slaves in their prison.

I'm just touching on this

All these are just more reasons for me to suicide soon. Who would want to be a slave and in their suicide prohibition state

 

[Skallagrim]

I'll be the first to admit that I haven't a clue about UK laws, its Constitution, if there even is a Constitution, the civil rights afforded to its citizens, etc.

Ever wonder why the UK has a king/queen?

Tourism? Quaintness? A little quirk?

Nope. It's because for a constitutional monarchy you need a monarchy.

All of the UK's 60 million population are the crown's "subjects", the king's property, and are legally subject to the whims of the monarch. Of course the powers of the "monarch" have been taken by Parliament. This means, in effect, they can do whatever the hell they like.

We're talking about country with the most surveillance cameras on planet earth - more than North Korea, more than Eritrea.

A country where you do NOT have a right to silence when arrested, nor a right to be represented by council.

A country where, if law enforcement or prosecutors find out evidence that would prove your innocence, they do NOT have to reveal it to you or your legal representative.

A country where "open court" is fill of secrecy, with only strictly vetted individuals being allowed to report what they're told about what goes on in them.

A country where political representatives "vote" by walking up one corridor or another corridor and someone counts their heads as they wander past.

And a country without any written or codified constitution at all.

The UK is, as far as I know, the only country on earth where you can be put in prison for looking at someone. On the whims of an activist police chief, staring at someone was declared illegal and problematic enough to lock up someone in jail. I wish I was kidding.

In short, there are no civil rights at all worth mentioning in the UK.

 

[KinderEgg]

Ever wonder why the UK has a king/queen?

Tourism? Quaintness? A little quirk?

Nope. It's because for a constitutional monarchy you need a monarchy.

All of the UK's 60 million population are the crown's "subjects", the king's property, and are legally subject to the whims of the monarch. Of course the powers of the "monarch" have been taken by Parliament. This means, in effect, they can do whatever the hell they like.

We're talking about country with the most surveillance cameras on planet earth - more than North Korea, more than Eritrea.

A country where you do NOT have a right to silence when arrested, nor a right to be represented by council.

A country where, if law enforcement or prosecutors find out evidence that would prove your innocence, they do NOT have to reveal it to you or your legal representative.

A country where "open court" is fill of secrecy, with only strictly vetted individuals being allowed to report what they're told about what goes on in them.

A country where political representatives "vote" by walking up one corridor or another corridor and someone counts their heads as they wander past.

And a country without any written or codified constitution at all.

The UK is, as far as I know, the only country on earth where you can be put in prison for looking at someone. On the whims of an activist police chief, staring at someone was declared illegal and problematic enough to lock up someone in jail. I wish I was kidding.

In short, there are no civil rights at all worth mentioning in the UK.

The UK certainly has a lot of problems but I don't think a lot of what you've presented is accurate, two of the most obvious points being you DO have a right to remain silent when arrested, and to my knowledge has been a right since 1912. You also have the right to legal representation under article 6 of the Human Rights Act. There are a lot of problems with the UK but these certainly aren't included.

 

[Skallagrim]

The UK certainly has a lot of problems but I don't think a lot of what you've presented is accurate, two of the most obvious points being you DO have a right to remain silent when arrested, and to my knowledge has been a right since 1912. You also have the right to legal representation under article 6 of the Human Rights Act. There are a lot of problems with the UK but these certainly aren't included.

Right to silence:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
In other words, sure, you can technically stay silent - but they can use that against you. There will be *consequences* if you exercise that right. That isn't a right at all.

Legal representation:

From UK gov's own website: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/legal-advice-at-the-police-station

"Once you've asked for legal advice, the police cannot question you until you've got it – with some exceptions.

The police can make you wait for legal advice in serious cases, but only if a senior officer agrees."

So they can't question you, unless they can, because some "senior" officer agreed it is serious enough.

These are not codified rights. These are a loose set of "aspirations" intended to give the appearance of rights while really giving the system the ultimate right to screw you sideways if it wants to.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

Ever wonder why the UK has a king/queen?

I thought they were just figureheads, there because of tradition.

A country where you do NOT have a right to silence when arrested, nor a right to be represented by council.

What do they do, beat you up if you won't talk, possibly like some 3rd world countries might, or Russia?

The UK is, as far as I know, the only country on earth where you can be put in prison for looking at someone. On the whims of an activist police chief, staring at someone was declared illegal and problematic enough to lock up someone in jail. I wish I was kidding.

Now, this one here is really effed up. I hadn't realized the UK authorities had the power of "mind reading", which is what they'd have to have in order to know what was going on in a person's mind while they were staring at someone. That's some really over-the-top stuff there. Scary.