A legal fight unfolding between American free speech advocates and British regulators has revealed a troubling push by the United Kingdom to apply its censorship laws to U.S. citizens. The case could determine whether any foreign government can control what Americans say online.

Attorney Preston Byrne, who represents several online platforms in the lawsuit 4chan Community Support LLC and Lolcow LLC v. the U.K. Office of Communications (Ofcom), warned that the British agency is trying to enforce its new “Online Safety Act” beyond its borders. Byrne and his co-counsel, Ron Coleman, argue that Ofcom’s actions are an assault on U.S. sovereignty and the First Amendment.

Byrne explained that Britain’s efforts are part of a wider European campaign to regulate what Americans publish online. He summarized the principle behind his legal strategy in one sentence: “The law of the server is the law of the site.”

In other words, if a website is hosted in the United States, only U.S. law applies.

“We Americans already know that emailed demands from European speech and data protection regulators are not legally binding in the United States,” Byrne said.

He pointed to recent statements from London law firms warning American companies not to ignore Europe’s new internet regulations. One British firm even claimed the “international reach” of the U.K.’s Online Safety Act gave London the authority to send legal demands across the Atlantic.

Byrne dismissed that idea as nonsense.

“The United States, not Ofcom or the European Commission, sets the rules on what orders Americans may safely ignore in the United States,” he said.

He also noted that under U.S. law, due process is required before any person or business can be compelled to comply with a foreign order.

“Americans do not surrender our constitutional rights just because Ofcom sends us an email,” Byrne told the BBC.

That statement set off a reaction in London’s legal community. But Byrne clarified that it wasn’t bluster—it was a warning. To compel an American citizen or company, a foreign government must follow proper legal treaties, such as the Hague Service Convention or a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. Simply sending an email from Europe doesn’t count.

The push from Britain and the European Union is part of a growing effort to export their censorship systems abroad. Byrne says that while most American companies have quietly gone along with European demands in the past, a new generation of free speech advocates is beginning to resist.

Recent court rulings back that stance. Earlier this year, in a case involving Trump Media and Technology Group, a federal court ruled that foreign censorship orders have “no force and effect in the U.S.” unless they are properly served under treaty procedures.

The judgment made clear that “no one is authorized or obligated to assist in their enforcement” inside the United States.

Byrne argues that the same logic applies to all attempts by European regulators to fine or silence American companies.

“European speech rules don’t govern American metal, American communications, and American conduct on American soil,” he said.

In one striking example, the U.S.-based social media company Gab refused to comply with Germany’s online censorship laws nearly a decade ago. Byrne noted that after years of failed attempts, “the Germans have not been able to enforce the NetzDG on American soil. Because they can’t.”

Other companies are starting to push back as well. The American image-sharing site Imgur recently pulled out of the U.K. altogether rather than comply with Ofcom’s orders, invoking the U.S. Constitution as its defense.

Byrne believes this growing resistance will soon spread.

“Europe will be able to do very little in the face of mass refusal of its orders,” he said.

If his lawsuit succeeds, it could establish a landmark principle for the digital age: foreign governments cannot censor Americans, online or offline, without running headfirst into the First Amendment.