Censor Watch

See article from en.wikipedia.org

4chan is an anonymous English-language imageboard website. The site hosts boards dedicated to a wide variety of topics, from video games and television to literature, cooking, weapons, music, history, technology, anime, physical fitness, politics, and sports, porn, among others. Registration is not available, except for staff, and users typically post anonymously. 4chan receives more than 22 million unique monthly visitors, of whom approximately half are from the United States.

The website achieved a little notoriety in Donald Trump's first presidential term. The wesbite was identified for providing a voice to 'alt-right' (right leaning) Trump supporters who were otherwise silenced by an alliance of liberal internet companies and mainstream media outlets..

In June 2025 Ofcom announced that it was looking into censoring 4chn. Ofcom wrote:

Ofcom has launched investigations into whether seven file-sharing services, 4chan and porn provider First Time Videos have failed to comply with their duties under the UK's Online Safety Act. Duties under the Act

The Online Safety Act has introduced new rules to ensure online services take action to protect their UK users, especially children.

Sites that publish their own pornography must already have highly effective age checks in place to stop children accessing this material. Search and user-to-user services -- where people can see content shared by others, including social media -- should have assessed the risk of their UK users encountering illegal content and activity on their platforms, and must now be taking appropriate steps to protect them from it.

As well as engaging with large platforms about their new duties, our dedicated taskforce has been attempting to engage with a number of smaller sites that may present particular risks to users. Today we have opened investigations into a number of these services.

Specifically, we are investigating whether the providers of these services have failed to:

put appropriate safety measures in place to protect UK users from illegal content and activity; complete -- and keep a record of -- a suitable and sufficient illegal harms risk assessment; and respond to a statutory information request.

4chan hasn't made a statement about Ofcom's censorship. The website is still generally available in the UKbut is partially self censored. Attempting to reach the site via the home page results in a 403 error message (meaning that the user is unauthorised). However jumping into any other page (eg https://boards.4chan.org/news/) works without error.

 

Offsite Comment: Allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website.

See article from reclaimthenet.org

Ofcom has set its sights on 4chan, a US-hosted imageboard owned by a Japanese national. The site operates under US law and has no physical infrastructure, employees, or legal registration in Britain. Nonetheless, UK regulators have declared it fair game.

Wherever in the world a service is based if it has 'links to the UK', it now has duties to protect UK users, Ofcom insists.

That phrase, links to the UK, is intentionally vague and extraordinarily expensive, allowing British authorities to demand compliance from virtually any website.

This kind of extraterritorial overreach marks a direct threat to the principle of national sovereignty in internet governance. The UK is attempting to dictate the rules of online speech to foreign companies, hosted on foreign servers, and serving users in other countries, all because someone in Britain might visit their site.

According to Ofcom, 4chan failed to respond to its statutory information requests, making it one of nine services now under formal investigation.

What this law actually does is push platforms, especially smaller or independent ones, out of the UK entirely.

Rather than making the internet safer, the law is creating a digital iron curtain around the UK, where only government-approved content and services remain accessible.

A paid-for ad on the Guardian news website for Diesel clothing, seen on 26 March 2025, featured an image of the model, Katie Price, wearing a bikini and holding a handbag in front of her chest. Text underneath the image stated, Diesel Spring Summer 2025.

The ASA received 13 complaints.

1. Some complainants, who believed the ad objectified and sexualised women, challenged whether it was offensive, harmful and irresponsible.

2. Some complainants, who believed the model appeared to be unhealthily thin, challenged whether the ad was irresponsible.

Diesel said the ad was part of a brand campaign called The Houseguests, which was designed to challenge stereotypes and support diversity and inclusion in the fashion industry, by reflecting a wide range of body types. They regretted that this context was not clear to the complainants. They believed the ad was compliant with the CAP Code, but nevertheless they had removed the ad from the Guardian website. They said the ad had been published in over 100 countries worldwide and they had not been notified of any other complaints.

2. Diesel said although Ms Price was slender, she had excellent muscle tone and was not unhealthily underweight. They said, in the ad Ms Price's head was in proportion with her body, her collar bones were not overly pronounced and her limbs, although slender, were clearly covered with healthy muscle and were proportional to her size. They believed the image was not therefore irresponsible.

ASA Assessment 1. Upheld

The ASA acknowledged Diesel's comments regarding the wider advertising campaign, but considered the ad in isolation, as it was likely that at least some people seeing the ad would not have seen any of the other ads or videos that were part of the campaign.

The model featured in the ad was Katie Price, a well-known public figure. She was shown holding a Diesel handbag in front of her chest, prominently in the foreground of the image, and was wearing one of Diesel's bikinis. We understood that the products featured were part of Diesel's Spring Summer 2025 collection. She appeared to be standing in front of a portable sunbed, which would have been apparent to some people seeing the ad. However, the background of the image showed Ms Price was inside a house, rather than a location which would be more immediately associated with wearing a bikini, such as a beach or poolside.

The bikini only partially covered Ms Price's breasts and we considered the positioning of the handbag, in front of her stomach with the handle framing her chest, drew viewers' attention to, and emphasised, that part of her body. While we acknowledged that Ms Price was shown in a confident and self-assured pose and in control, we considered that because of the positioning of the handbag, which had the effect of emphasising and drawing attention to her breasts, the ad sexualised her in a way that objectified her. We therefore considered the ad was likely to cause serious offence, was irresponsible and breached the Code.

ASA Assessment 2. Not upheld

We acknowledged that Ms Price was slim and considered whether the ad depicted her in such a way as to make her appear unhealthily thin.

We considered that her arms, whilst slender, did have some muscle tone and were in proportion to the rest of her body. Her hair had been styled away from her face in a beehive style, in such a way as to elongate her face and her head was slightly tilted downwards which added to that effect, but we did not consider she appeared gaunt. None of her bones were obviously protruding. There was a gap between her thighs but that appeared, at least in part, due to her pose with one leg stepped forward. Only the tops of her thighs were visible in the ad, and we considered they did not appear to be unduly slender and appeared to be in proportion to the rest of her body. We therefore considered that the ad did not depict Ms Price in such a way as to make her appear unhealthily thin and concluded that it was not irresponsible on that basis.

The ad must not appear again in the form complained of. We told Diesel SpA t/a Diesel to ensure their future ads were socially responsible and did not cause serious or widespread offence.

A Game in the Woods is a 2024 US horror by Mike McCutchen
Starring Eleanor Newman, Emily Skeen and John P. Crowley

The BBFC briefly reported dialogue cuts to this film but this was an erroneous database entry and the film is actually uncut and BBFC 18 rated. The video is uncut and MPA Unrated in the US.

Summary Notes

After a Texas rancher dies, his granddaughter and her girlfriend discover masked hunters at his ranch competing in a twisted game of life and death. Will the beauties and their already rocky romance survive the brutal carnage?

Versions

uncut run: 80:14s pal: 77:01s

US: Uncut and MPAA Unrated for: 2025 Jinga Films Ltd R1 DVD at US Amazon #ad UK: BBFC 18 rated for strong gory violence, brief sexual violence for strong gory violence, brief sexual violence after BBFC cuts: 2025 Jinga Films VoD (rated 09/06/2025)