Judge Denies Lawsuit Over Dirty Domains

caledon writes: "A Brooklyn judge has ruled that Network Solutions cannot be sued for civil rights violations because it refused to register obscene domain names. This New York Law Journal article describes how Island Online, Inc. sued NSI and the National Science Foundation for denial of free-speech rights because NSI refused to "register three 'dot-com' domain names that incorporated words commonly considered obscene: 'f---me.com;' 'f---you.com' and 'c---s-----.com.'"" The main point here is that NSI is supposedly not bound by the rules that bind the U.S. Government, despite holding a monopoly granted by the Commerce Department.

Comments

The NSI doesn't hold a monopoly

[emmons]

The main point here is that NSI is supposedly not bound by the rules that bind the U.S. Government, despite holding a monopoly granted by the Commerce Department.

Network Solutions no longer has a monopoly on domain registrations, you can go to any of the ICANN members to register whatever domain is not taken. ICANN is not part of the US government either, as the bottem of their website clearly states.

Re:The NSI doesn't hold a monopoly

[use_preview]

This case was filed before Network Solutions lost their monopoly.

Was this policy puplic knowledge

[Engmir]

before they tried to register the domains?
Probably not, but then I think the decision is #$%^ :).

If you can't register a domain quickly it will be gone, so not the refusal of the registration should be issue (Judge is right there are alternative companies) but the delay.
anyone have more info on this?

personally.....

[matth]

Personally, i think that it's agood NSI has taken a stand. There is no reason to be registering obscene domain names. The only reason someone is going to register a domain name like that, is to use it for a pornographic site, or some such other waste of bandwidth. I for one am happy to see this going on.

Re:personally.....

[hiryuu]

To paraphrase Larry Flynt, if the law/policy/actions protect the perverse, then we can rest assured that the remainder of the population (on- or offline) can expect to be treated fairly, sensibly, and justly.

Not that I really care whether or not some porn tycoon makes money on such an opportunity, but the principle still holds.

Question

[GoneInsane]

What so bad about f---me.com? It's only hyphens and three letters.

They're all registered, what gives?

[Anonymous Coward]

Domain Name: FUCKME.COM
Registrar: DOMAIN BANK, INC.
Whois Server: rs.domainbank.net
Referral URL: www.domainbank.net
Name Server: DNS1.DOMAINBANK.NET
Name Server: DNS2.DOMAINBANK.NET
Updated Date: 28-aug-2000

Domain Name: FUCKYOU.COM
Registrar: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.register.com
Referral URL: www.register.com
Name Server: NS.NATIONALA-1ADVERTISING.COM
Name Server: NS2.NATIONALA-1ADVERTISING.COM
Updated Date: 22-aug-2000

Domain Name: COCKSUCKER.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: www.networksolutions.com
Name Server: No nameserver
Updated Date: 27-sep-2000

STATUS QUO ANTE (COCKSUCKER4-DOM)
United States District Court, District of
New Hampshire, 55 Pleasant Street
Concord, NH 03301

Domain Name: COCKSUCKER.COM

Cocksucker.com seems to be held by a court, but .net and .org are not:

Domain Name: COCKSUCKER.NET
Registrar: BULKREGISTER.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.bulkregister.com
Referral URL: www.bulkregister.com
Name Server: NS3.FREESERVERS.COM
Name Server: NS4.FREESERVERS.COM
Updated Date: 15-mar-2000

Domain Name: COCKSUCKER.ORG
Registrar: CORE INTERNET COUNCIL OF REGISTRARS
Whois Server: whois.corenic.net
Referral URL: www.corenic.net
Name Server: DNS1.NOMINALIA.COM
Name Server: DNS2.NOMINALIA.COM
Updated Date: 15-jul-1999

Re:They're all registered, what gives?

[use_preview]

But not through Network Solutions. In the time since this case was filed, other registrars have allowed people to register some domain names that NetSol viewed as inappropriate.

No monopoly, no argument.

[rakslice]

NSI was granted a monopoly? Well, they were paid to operate a DNS network, sure. But it was never made illegal to start a competing network. And thus, no monopoly. I hate having to point this out every five seconds.

Domain names aren't property, folks.

- rak

If it had gone the other way

[GoneInsane]

What if the Judge said the company had been wrong? That means every ISP or server that does not permit foul language would have to accept that sort of language or be brought to trial. Since there are to many immature people out there, how many thesh**@aol.com or f***me@mindspring.com do you think would spring up? Tons! Personally, I think this was a great call by the judge.

Domain Name Censorship

[jmorse]

This whole situation stinks of the PMRC witch hunt of the 1980s. The sad part is that *most* domain resellers will eventually be pressured into censoring domain names. And there's nothing we as citizens can do about it, short of changing the law.

As it turns out, register.com censors domain names too. But they won't even tell you you're being censored; they just give you the standard "this domain is not available" message...it took me 5 phone calls to get them to admit that they censor domain names.