Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

KY Appeals Court Nixes Seizure of Gambling-Linked Domains

Posted by timothy on from the stick-to-the-whiskey-making dept.

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.'"

9 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. a network not a jurisdiction by drewzhrodague · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:a network not a jurisdiction by internerdj · · Score: 4, Funny

      The great firewall of Kentucky...

  2. Great... by CmdrPorno · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Great... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it passed, the law would get struck down in the Federal courts as unconstitutional. States don't get to interfere in interstate commerce, and that includes trying to regulate internet domain names.

    2. Re:Great... by Translation+Error · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's the court's job. When disallow something in a ruling, they tell why they did so; they don't say, "You can't do this, but we're not going to tell you why."

      --
      When someone says, "Any fool can see ..." they're usually exactly right.
  3. KY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  4. KY by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  5. What prerogative does KY act under... by Snotman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. It *IS* just a name after all by dmomo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.