Slashdot Mirror
KY Appeals Court Nixes Seizure of Gambling-Linked Domains
davidwr writes "A state appeals court in Kentucky ruled that the state courts cannot seize domain names as 'gambling devices.' The court ruled that 'it's up to the General Assembly — not the courts nor the state Justice Cabinet — to bring domain names into the definition of illegal gambling devices.'"
I can hear the banjos floating over them thar internets now, clogging up the tubes...
IANAL, but the Internet is a network, not a jurisdiction. I can't imagine they'd be able to do anything, other than block the site at the borders of the state, which is ridiculous.
Sure, there is gambling on the Internet. Sure, they may not like it. Could they prevent Citizens from using those websites?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
I predict a bill will be introduced in the next session of Kentucky's General Assembly changing the definition of "gambling devices" to include domain names. Way to suggest an escape hatch for the attorney general and lawmakers...
Sent from my iPhone
It's not the job of the judicial branch to make law? Who knew?
I thought this article was about something else entirely. Sure, Kentucky makes more sense, but its much less ... appealing.
I'm disappointed. Disappointed and dry.
I saw KY, and thought it was some elaborate goatse troll.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
when grabbing domain names owned by some other entity in the World? If any entity can just claim that a domain name is illegal, then what prevents me from grabbing KY domain names? Why would a state entity have a greater authority than any other political entity or individual? Who holds KY responsible for acting without a prerogative for this power? For instance, why don't the island nations hosting gambling companies grab all KY GOV domains just to be malicious? I would.
I'm not making a statement for or against this action. But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain. The site can still be up, it just cannot be referred to by the name anymore. It won't stop the the gambling, it will simply make it more difficult to describe (or find in this case). They cannot confiscate the IP address or shut down the machines if those sites are off shore.
I guess this is the equivalent of keeping people away from a location by erasing it from their map.
Things don't sieze up when you lube up with KY.
Ignoring for the moment that bans on gambling are stupid & this was a purely protectionist move, what should kentucky have done instead? Lets pretend this law was a good one that we wanted to see enforced, how can a state enforce it?
KY doesn't have jurisdiction over the organizations behind the gambling sites (or the domain registrars, another problem with this case) - so they couldn't force location aware IP blocks (which don't work anyway), they couldn't fine the organizations, or impose any normal civil/criminal penalties. In addition, ISP level blocks don't work & are costly, and the servers were also outside KY and couldn't be seized.
I agree this was a stupid stupid order that violated due process, free speech, and commons sense. But if the websites & owners in Antigua (or wherever they're based) were selling US credit card numbers & the accompanying data, from servers in Antigua at http://identity-theft.ag/ for purposes of fraud - what could a state do to enforce anti-fraud laws? (assuming this was a state question) What could the feds do, apart from file a claim with the WTO? (which they have regarding gambling in antigua I believe).
I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.
And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England, ...?
Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.
(And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain.
"What's in a name?"
In this case it's NOT just a name. It's an entry in a publicly-accessible and trusted database, mapping the name to a set of servers.
THAT's what the state of Kentucky seized.
And it's very valuable. I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue resulting from the disruption of their business (along with damage to their trademark) caused by Kentucky's successful appropriation of their domain records.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This kind of thinking by the political leadership of Kentucky is what's wrong in general with politics and leadership in the USA.
Look at whatever economic or social statistics you want about the Bluegrass State and you'll see that the state has more important problems to address. By diverting attention to this kind of absolute nonsense, the Kentucky political leaders expose themselves as the asshats they really are and reinforce negative stereotypes of the state.
Next thing you know, they'll be legislating values of pi like those boobs in Indiana.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
Short answer: it cannot. It would be unconstitutional in at least two counts: if considered as commerce, states cannot interfere in interstate commerce. If not considered as commerce then it's equivalent to speech, and would violate the First Amendment.
A state can prohibit gambling, for instance betting on horse races. But it cannot prohibit anyone to publish horse race results. What could the state of Kentucky do if someone phones a bookmaker in Las Vegas placing a bet on a horse?
Go after the buyers. Who uses that data for committing fraud? That's where the actual harm is perpetrated.
I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue
While it's a nice thought, it's not gonna happen.
Amendment XI
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commence or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Which is generally interpreted to mean states have immunity from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders.
This kind of thinking by the political leadership of Kentucky
I appreciate you disassociating Kentucky's citizens from it's current political leadership. When this story first broke a few months ago, Kentuckians were just as surprised as anyone. All that was known about the administration was that it intended to leverage gambling to bring more revenue into the state. What happened came completely out of left field as far as I'm concerned.
I'm not embarassed or ashamed by what happened, however, since.. I didn't vote for him.
That was one great, common sense judgement. Instead of allowing the executive branch to run free, they clearly stated it was up to the legislature to make a decision first. Imagine if the feds had judges this good. States and municipalities wouldn't be running around seizing just about anything their heart desired during arrests for everything from drugs to DUI abusing a vague and misguided statute when seen in it's intended form, and one that is beyond comprehension in how it has been applied.
Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
tl;dr
[The 11th Amendment] is generally interpreted to mean states have immunity from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders.
I was under the impression it meant that, if a citizen of another state or foreign country wanted to sue (on civil issues) a state government it had to do so in that state's courts (or perhaps in the courts of a state where the act in question was committed and the defendant state had some "presence", i.e. assets worth seizing).
Of course the state, once sued in its own courts, might elect to assert its sovereign immunity. But it also might not - or it might already have laws on its books waiving the sovereign immunity in a range of cases that included the issue at hand.
Alternatively: The state and its officials might be vulnerable in federal court under the federal civil rights law for "violating (the plantiff's) civil rights under color of law".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Great. Just great. We have a story about KY, and the highest modded +5 has to inform us "IANAL."
This is rather disturbing indeed.
Your points are definitely right; keep at it. One nitpick: the states didn't surrender functions to the feds, they delegated them. In practice it's been more like surrendering, but I think it's important to maintain even the theoretical distinction.
What sucked in this case was that GoDaddy handed over all those domains without a fight, but Network Solutions fought the suit for their customers and won. Network Soluions > GoDaddy.
http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/kudos-network-solutions-standing-online-gambling-sites-100708.html
Well, it's nice that this was killed on appeal. Kinda sad it made it to this point though.
Yeah, up to the General Assembly. That is, when they gain the power to enter into the international treaties that it would require to do this.
Do they not have one judge in that state who can step up and put an end to this shameful display of ignorance and idiocy?
Do you have ESP?
At first, I couldn't understand what this ruling had to do with personal lubricants.
For the life of me, I can't understand why we continue to waste time and money trying to prohibit things that 1) don't affect anyone not involved in the transaction and 2) people are absolutely, positively going to do, no matter how illegal they are. People are going to gamble, use drugs, and patronize prostitutes, period. Why can't we just accept the fact and move on?