Slashdot Mirror


Kentucky Judge Upholds State's Gambling-Domain Grab

JohnHegarty writes "A Kentucky judge has upheld that state's seizure of some of the world's most popular online casino domain names, ruling they constitute a 'gambling device' that is subject to Kentucky's anti-gambling laws." Wasn't it surreal enough on the first round?

5 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. This just in by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Congress upholds right of DHS to confiscate your stuff for 24 hours.

    I know, but is anyone surprised. Really, gambling is in that same circle as cigarettes and alcohol. Somehow the states have held on to their rights to exclusive domain over them within their borders whereas they lost about every other regulatory ability to the feds.

    WTO maybe? Some world body should laugh them off.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  2. Power by Andr+T. · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Every day there's news here about Government trying to control the Internet. China with their great firewall, the UK and their laws, Australia and their version of internet control. Government gets crazy when they sense there's something they can't control. Judges, Senators, Presidents, the whole system.

    What makes me sad is that I always thought it'd be harder to 'control' the internet, but it seems they'll do it sooner or later.

    --

    Any life is made up of a single moment, the moment in which a man finds out, once and for all, who he is.

  3. Motion to remove to the Federal courts in by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...5...4...3...2...1 A state judge rules that state officials have the right to take domain names registered elsewhere and belonging to organizations based elsewhere? This one is not staying in the state courts.

  4. Re:Not entirely accurate by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's still a bad move. Basically, the judge should have thrown the case out because it's a piece of shit (or whatever the legal term is). If any of the gambling sites had corporate sites in Kentucky or web-hosting in Kentucky, then the suit has some legal basis.

    But since they don't, it's setting a bad precedent of "Well, it's illegal here, so our laws apply to the website no matter where it's located".

    Hang on tight, kids, it's a slippery slope coming up!

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  5. Re:Not entirely accurate by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not the wholesale grab of domain names some people want you to believe.

    The issue is not whether it's a "wholesale grab" or not. The issue is that if Kentucky has authority to seize a domain name used for gambling, any state has authority to seize a domain name used for anything in state law, and the net is quickly reduced to the lowest common denominator.

    (Indeed, seems to me - though IANAL - that if this nutcase theory of jurisdiction holds, any country hostile to free speech can seize domain names left and right. Germany can seize "HolocaustDeniers.org", Russian can seize "PutinSucks.com".)

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood