Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

texasattorneygeneral.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 323 posts

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#51

Post by Zak »

abraham wrote: post #45
TurdF3rguson wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like it's pretty easy to comply. Pornhub and others don't have any problems complying with TX.

According to this pornhub is blocked in 25 states including Texas. https://mashable.com/article/pornhub-blocked-states-2025

You wrote this in the passive voice; it doesn't say who is doing the blocking.

Pornhub itself is doing the blocking; it uses geolocation and denies services to IP addresses from jurisdictions with age verification laws. The laws are usually not structured so as to require a third party such as an ISP to block noncompliant sites; instead, the governments of the states with those laws can sue the porn sites and their service providers (Verisign in the case of .com domains).

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#52

Post by throwatdem12311 »

rblatz wrote: post #11

Default judgement, absolutely meaningless at this point as to how a court would rule against a plaintiff that actually showed up, respected the court’s authority, and defended itself.

So if I don’t do business in Texas, have no operations in Texas or otherwise deal with Texas in any way a state court should just be able to order a company to suspend my whole domain?

I’m Canadian and Texas courts have zero authority over me so they can f*ck off.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#53

Post by nadermx »

I guess by default all .com's have US jurisdiction? Because even if it's a default judgment, and the registrar is based out of the US, which seems to the case here, any court order from the US is able to take a domain down.

Found the case, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/07...

The Ninth Circuit held that the U.S. court had jurisdiction to proceed because VeriSign—the registry for all .com domains—was located in the United States.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#54

Post by fwip »

walrus01 wrote: post #50
rblatz wrote: post #11

Default judgement, absolutely meaningless at this point as to how a court would rule against a plaintiff that actually showed up, respected the court’s authority, and defended itself.

Why should a Netherlands based company that publishes content on the internet entirely outside of this state's borders and jurisdiction be required to show up or respect its authority? By this logic if I'm sued in Turkey for publishing content on my web server hosted in California insulting Erdogan, I should have to go show up and defend myself in some kangaroo court.

If you want to keep the domain name you got from a TLD that they control, yes.

Or did you mean, like, morally?

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#55

Post by monksy »

This kills their operations in other states that do not have this.

Not sure how this does not violate interstate commerce.

Contact your congress criter: https://www.congress.gov/

BTW: Kick - Melborne, AU. US Operations: SanFran CA. Registar: Verisign - Reston, VA.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#56

Post by antonvs »

comrade1234 wrote: post #31
BobbyTables2 wrote: post #2

I don’t understand - was this site or company based in Texas? Otherwise the general idea seems absurd that an individual state could freeze a domain impacting for the whole Internet… (EDIT: I won’t lose any sleep at the loss of such scum but the general principle seems a bit strange.)

It's not confusing and you should understand what's happening for your own safety. This has been happening for a couple of decades internationally and now with USA states. This result means that Texas can take various means to block motherless. But more importantly no motherless employees should travel to Texas without risk of arrest. Same for abc/youtube/facebook employess traveling to India. You should be aware of…

Even people with mothers shouldn't travel to Texas.

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#57

Post by [deleted] »

throwatdem12311 wrote: post #52
rblatz wrote: post #11

Default judgement, absolutely meaningless at this point as to how a court would rule against a plaintiff that actually showed up, respected the court’s authority, and defended itself.

So if I don’t do business in Texas, have no operations in Texas or otherwise deal with Texas in any way a state court should just be able to order a company to suspend my whole domain? I’m Canadian and Texas courts have zero authority over me so they can f*ck off.

[deleted]

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#58

Post by mapontosevenths »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #20
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisign (Under "Controversies".) > In March 2012, the U.S. government declared that it has the right to seize domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, .name, and .org if the companies administering the domains are based in the U.S. The U.S. government can seize the domains ending in .com, .net, .cc, .tv, and .name by serving a court-order on Verisign, which manages those domains.

Perhaps for violations of _federal_ law… However, applying this for violations of _state_ law seems odd. Where does it end? What if a law enacted by a single US city’s city council is violated? Would US as a country seize the domain?

I'm gonna get a few people together and all run for city council so we can seize profitable domain names for ourselves.

"Sorry Meta, but BFE, Nebraska outlawed Farmville and now some guy named Bob owns facebook.com."

Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law

#59

Post by walrus01 »

fwip wrote: post #54
walrus01 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should a Netherlands based company that publishes content on the internet entirely outside of this state's borders and jurisdiction be required to show up or respect its authority? By this logic if I'm sued in Turkey for publishing content on my web server hosted in California insulting Erdogan, I should have to go show up and defend myself in some kangaroo court.

If you want to keep the domain name you got from a TLD that they control, yes. Or did you mean, like, morally?

But does a US State control a TLD, really? Is that even something that's within the legitimate legal power of an individual state? Previous .com seizures have been done at the federal court level. The federal government reserves the authority to regulate all inter-state commerce. The entire history of how the .com TLD is run by Verisign is federal government related.

Doing this at the state court level is as nonsensical as an individual state deciding it doesn't like a law or regulation that's part of the jurisdiction of the FAA or FCC, and wants to do its own unique weird local thing.

Post reply on HN