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

241–250 of 323 posts

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

#241

Post by 15155 »

walrus01 wrote: post #240
15155 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those states somehow exempt from the United States Constitution's requirement to uphold "judicial Proceedings of every other State?"

Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company that, for example, hosts the website of a medical office that ships abortion medication to Texas? That they would send the WSP to a colo in Tukwila near Seattle to pull the plugs on the servers? I highly doubt it. If the Texans don't like something in another state and want to attempt…

> Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company

I think that if there were any disagreement between the States, it would go to the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision. This is not the default. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States:

> Article III

> Section I

> The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

> Section II

> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Absent a controversy - i.e. a willingness to object: full faith and credit applies.

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

#242

Post by DangitBobby »

TurdF3rguson wrote: post #201
DangitBobby wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The states have applied intentionally onerous requirements onto these sites with full knowledge that would most likely not comply making them de facto blocks. You wouldn't be fooled if a gangster said "that's some nice kneecaps you got there, it would be a shame if something happened to them" so I don't know why we are acting so naive about Texas and co.

I can't tell if it's Texas or Porn sites that are supposed to be the gangster in this metaphor.

> so I don't know why we are acting so naive about Texas and co.

It's a bad metaphor. I'm just saying they don't have to directly say what it is they want these sites to do to coerce them to do it.

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

#243

Post by walrus01 »

15155 wrote: post #241
walrus01 wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company that, for example, hosts the website of a medical office that ships abortion medication to Texas? That they would send the WSP to a colo in Tukwila near Seattle to pull the plugs on the servers? I highly doubt it. If the Texans don't like something in another state and want to attempt…

> Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company I think that if there were any disagreement between the States, it would go to the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision. This is not the default. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States: > Article III > Section I > The judicial power of the United States, shall be…

So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court. Texas law enforcement doesn't get to just roll into another state and start grabbing servers. Nor is another state likely to obey such an order issued by a Texas State court without it going through federal court first.

Individual state courts and legislatures, as I'm sure you know, have a lot of latitude and room for difference from other states but only within their own physical boundaries. Weed being very legal in WA and totally illegal in ID is a fine example of such. Their jurisdictions do not extent beyond their borders. There's a reason why we have federal courts, laws, and federal law enforcement agencies.

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

#244

Post by 15155 »

walrus01 wrote: post #239
15155 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Second, a state court does not have jurisdiction beyond its borders for entities not operating within same. Where did you come by this information? Article IV, Section I Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.

If this was true in factual implementation, then Washington state's assault weapon ban would apply nationwide, which it decidedly does not. Or some particularly red state laws on abortion bans or abortion medication would apply in the other 49 states, which it does not. Or the court decision obligating the city and state of New York to issue concealed pistol permits to people who go through a process (even for non re…

> If this was true in factual implementation, then Washington state's assault weapon ban would apply nationwide, which it decidedly does not.

And when Viramontes v. Cook County is decided within the next year, it won't apply in Washington either.

Today, FFLs from other states won't ship these arms into Washington - how is that not "apply[ing] nationwide?" FFLs in Idaho will not sell you an AR-15 with a Washington license despite it being legal to do so federally.

> Or the court decision obligating the city and state of New York to issue concealed pistol permits to people who go through a process (even for non residents) would apply in Washington DC or Chicago, which it also does not.

This is an active area of debate, and a very poor analogue to use - firearms are a Constitutionally-protected and unique area (as is free speech, but SCOTUS has already effectively found in favor of Texas in this case.)

Why does my marriage license or driver's license apply nationwide but not my CCL? Why do I even need a CCL - there's zero historic precedent for it (Bruen)?

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

#245

Post by 15155 »

walrus01 wrote: post #243
15155 wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company I think that if there were any disagreement between the States, it would go to the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision. This is not the default. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States: > Article III > Section I > The judicial power of the United States, shall be…

So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court. Texas law enforcement doesn't get to just roll into another state and start grabbing servers. Nor is another state likely to obey such an order issued by a Texas State court without it going through federal court first. Individual state courts and legislatures, as I'm sure you know, have a lot of latitude and room for difference from other states but only wi…

> So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court.

If it's challenged. Has that happened here? SCOTUS has already declined to get involved - implicitly ratifying Texas's statutes.

> Their jurisdictions do not extent beyond their borders.

If you break a law in Texas and flee to California, California will extradite you. The internet is the unique element here, because it's globally accessible. Our laws still exist regardless of technology.

What happens if Texas says: "Verisign: you can't do business within our borders?" They'd surely be within their rights to do that. What else can Verisign practically do but comply?

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

#246

Post by inigyou »

monksy wrote: post #162
inigyou wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Texas isn't like a small corrupt country. It's like a big corrupt important country, like Germany. If it was small and corrupt it would be ignorable.

They're a small corrupt country. The only thing slightly redeem about about them economic wise is their gas reserves. The way they run their state is very similar to a corrupt nation as well. They still want to break away from the US.

So like Russia.

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

#247

Post by walrus01 »

15155 wrote: post #245
walrus01 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court. Texas law enforcement doesn't get to just roll into another state and start grabbing servers. Nor is another state likely to obey such an order issued by a Texas State court without it going through federal court first. Individual state courts and legislatures, as I'm sure you know, have a lot of latitude and room for difference from other states but only wi…

> So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court. If it's challenged. Has that happened here? SCOTUS has already declined to get involved - implicitly ratifying Texas's statutes. > Their jurisdictions do not extent beyond their borders. If you break a law in Texas and flee to California, California will extradite you. The internet is the unique element here, because it's globally accessible. Our laws stil…

Was anyone who broke the law in texas? It's a euro porn site publishing content on servers outside of Texas. With a domain name whose ultimate root is a company in Virginia.

The fact that verisign (and various other registrars of .com) have other unrelated clients with other domain names who may be in Texas is unrelated.

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

#248

Post by inigyou »

gamblor956 wrote: post #151
inigyou wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the current precedent is that porn is not speech.

Porn is speech. This has been litigated several times by SCOTUS. Obscenity is not speech.

It appears that in Texas, porn is considered obscenity.

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

#249

Post by inigyou »

dlenski wrote: post #190
inigyou wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The winner of that battle will be wherever the DNS is hosted. Which is the USA. Even several ccTLDs are hosted in the USA and must obey USA law above the law of that country.

Which ones?

IIRC .tv and .to are two famous ones. .me recently removed something or other because it turned out to be owned by US investors. And there are more, I just don't know the efficient way to go looking.

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

#250

Post by 15155 »

walrus01 wrote: post #247
15155 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court. If it's challenged. Has that happened here? SCOTUS has already declined to get involved - implicitly ratifying Texas's statutes. > Their jurisdictions do not extent beyond their borders. If you break a law in Texas and flee to California, California will extradite you. The internet is the unique element here, because it's globally accessible. Our laws stil…

Was anyone who broke the law in texas ? It's a euro porn site publishing content on servers outside of Texas. With a domain name whose ultimate root is a company in Virginia. The fact that verisign (and various other registrars of .com) have other unrelated clients with other domain names who may be in Texas is unrelated.

> Was anyone who broke the law in texas?

Irrelevant. Texas has jurisdiction over anyone doing business in Texas, and may enforce all judgments, writs, and other decrees using third-parties who also do business in Texas (Verisign decidedly does) and typically throughout the United States.

The law isn't an autistic computer system; this isn't about "fairness." This is about "what can be enforced." This controversy is more of a political and diplomatic issue than a legal issue.

Post reply on HN