The domain name is motherless.com if that's what you wanted to know. It's a porn site.
More interesting would be the IP!
Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
81–90 of 323 posts
Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#82The idea that a state court in one particular state can enforce such an absurd law against a company that likely has no business operations or servers in the state is ridiculous. I don't care if you like the porn site in question or not, or condone or endorse its content. This is a slippery slope towards every regional tinpot dictator legislature attempting to censor the internet by having an entity's domain name rev…
How do you feel about GDPR?
I worry about it about as much as I worry about getting extradited to Thailand to face court for violating a law insulting the Thai king. I am unaware of even a single person of my nationality who has been extradited to Europe to face some kind of GDPR tribunal.
If I were running a business that had any operations or clients whatsoever in Europe my opinion on this topic would be different (in terms of legal liability to the corporation, and necessity of compliance to ensure ongoing revenue from European customers, etc), but I am not.
Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://dnschecker.org/#A/motherless.com
So he managed to block the site globally for not forcibly violating the privacy of its users with mandatory age verification. The US court system really needs to do something about this, and overturn Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton in favour of Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union.
Motherless shouldn't have used a domain under Texan jurisdiction if they didn't want this to happen.
Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#84The idea that a state court in one particular state can enforce such an absurd law against a company that likely has no business operations or servers in the state is ridiculous. I don't care if you like the porn site in question or not, or condone or endorse its content. This is a slippery slope towards every regional tinpot dictator legislature attempting to censor the internet by having an entity's domain name rev…
> The idea that a state court in one particular state can enforce such an absurd law against a company that likely has no business operations or servers in the state is ridiculous.
Two things of note regarding this.
First, note the office of origin: Texas Attorney General, which is currently occupied by Ken Paxton who is running for a tightly contested seat in the US Senate.
Second, a state court does not have jurisdiction beyond its borders for entities not operating within same.
> .com in particular has also been well proven over the past 5 to 10 years to be vulnerable to federal court orders to seize domains at the registrar level. ... What's new is this is being done from the state court level.
Which is why any attempt to enforce this ruling would be subject to removal to Federal court.
Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
All fun and games till religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like.
Indeed. Does this mean Texas can shutdown other websites in other states that provide abortion support? I’m sure there are those who would argue such to be harmful to children…(not to mention the fetus)
Yes, it means exactly that.
Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#86The idea that a state court in one particular state can enforce such an absurd law against a company that likely has no business operations or servers in the state is ridiculous. I don't care if you like the porn site in question or not, or condone or endorse its content. This is a slippery slope towards every regional tinpot dictator legislature attempting to censor the internet by having an entity's domain name rev…
How do you feel about GDPR?
The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet. You're free to not serve your site in the EU. Texas is free to block sites in Texas. But Texas trying to remove the ability of Europeans to access European websites is a completely different matter.
Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#87So, what’s the safest domain tld that’s safe from all that craziness out there?
Your local country, provided that it is not crazy. Then you are only accountable to one country's jurisdiction.
Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#88I 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 do…
Every TLD that is not a ccTLD is effectively a US ccTLD. This has always been the case, and perhaps the US has tricked us into becoming complacent. If the world was fair they would all be underneath .us.
I want to see other countries start rejecting the ICANN root and forcing all the US domains under .us, but it will never happen. It would break their vhosts for one thing. Doing it at the browser level could avoid that.
Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#89Re: Texas wins court order to suspend domain name for violating age-verification law
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you feel about GDPR?
The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet. You're free to not serve your site in the EU. Texas is free to block sites in Texas. But Texas trying to remove the ability of Europeans to access European websites is a completely different matter.
> The GDPR doesn't try to remove anything from the global internet
GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal of things from the global internet
> You're free to not serve your site in the EU
Geoblocking is functionally impossible