| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago |
| It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. > Kick Online, which openly describes itself as a “moral free” company, ignored the lawsuit and refused to comply with the court’s order. It continued publishing and distributing harmful sexual material that was accessible to minors in Texas. This is the same website with a forum with millions of users trading information on how to assault their partner. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-as... FAFO. |
|
| ▲ | pixl97 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| All fun and games till religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like. |
| |
|
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. Then it's violating the laws of a whole lot of places by serving pornography to adults. The existence of a web server doesn't feel like enough nexus to seize a domain. |
|
| ▲ | profmonocle a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. What do you mean "serves"? Does that just mean not actively blocking users from Texas? Allowing your web site to be accessible regardless of user location is, and always has been, the default way to run a web site. Your assertion would mean that web site operators are beholden to the laws of all jurisdictions on the planet if they don't actively block those users. Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there? Also, keep in mind that geolocation isn't actually part of the Internet - it's an overlay that private companies have cobbled together that usually works. But it's not perfect, especially at the subnational level. Many times I've connected to public Wi-Fi and I get an alert that I've signed into something from across the country, because that's where the Wi-Fi provider's IPs are located. Are you sure that every jurisdiction in the world will accept that if gelocation gets it wrong, you're off the hook? Utah has already claimed that companies are responsible for complying with their laws even if the user masks their location with VPN. https://www.privacyguides.org/news/2026/05/11/utah-targets-v... |
| |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there? Simple: a local court having jurisdiction over those individuals would utilize their own laws and discretion to decide if they are required to extradite these people. If a country chooses not to comply, political consequences may ensue - this is basic international diplomacy. Russia doesn't seem to care about demands to extradite Snowden: they don't have to, they have the resources and political will to ignore these demands. Someday, perhaps to curry favor, they might comply. Smaller, weaker countries don't have the luxury of noncompliance, nor do they have the same ability to have their various legal proceedings enforced extraterritorially. Might makes right. | | |
| ▲ | walrus01 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Multiple times now in this thread you've parroted "might makes right" as if it's some universal axiom or law of physics (such as gravity, or the speed of light). This is what you actually believe as a moral guiding principle? Further, it seems to be presented in such a way to justify actions taken by one aggressive party in a legal dispute as inevitable, and therefore not worth forming any organized resistance to. Just roll over, show your belly, submit meekly to the more powerful (whomever), and accept your fate. I'm honestly wondering what sort of person goes through life like that. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Further, it seems to be presented in such a way to justify actions taken by one aggressive party in a legal dispute as inevitable You're free to fight back and contest it and be the Erin Brockovich you've always wanted to be - that is freedom. But the rest of us in reality understand how diplomacy, politics, and economic activity works. Interest (and by proxy, money) succeeds. People at large (not just neurodivergent, computer-employed, left-leaning folks) aren't all that interested in protecting your friendly neighborhood porn site (even if they frequent it or would be upset if it shut down), so these businesses lose. |
|
| |
| ▲ | inigyou 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | In the Anne Frank copyright case, the Anne Frank Foundation was found not liable for serving Dutch users (where the diary of Anne Frank is illegal) because they used "state-of-the-art geoblocking". It was also determined that VPN providers were not liable for making it possible to evade the geoblocking. |
|
|
| ▲ | monksy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Today I learned that a foreign government operates in Texas. I didn't know that Texas is supporting and promoting the North Korean government: http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/first I wonder why they aren't being called out for anti-American terrorist groups. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent [-] | | Not a .com domain, so out of reach. Anything within US reach, individuals or entities, is fair game from a US judicial system perspective. Everyone learns this the hard way, it seems. | | |
| ▲ | MyMemoryfails a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I think he means since IANA/ICANN assings country LTD, so technically it's also under USA jurisdiction. Waiting for the day when texas court demands deleting .ee LTD (since estonia is currently only country which has fought agaisnt age verification laws) | |
| ▲ | 8note a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | you'll find people in the thread saying that if its accessible in texas, its in Texas under that setup, yes, twxas is illegally breaking US sanctions against north korea | |
| ▲ | profmonocle a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | A federal court, sure. But this was a state court ruling on a state law. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo a day ago | parent [-] | | My other comment in this thread has citations demonstrating SCOTUS support and approval for Texas to enforce these laws, as well as links to statue trackers showing where states and countries have implemented these age validation requirements for social media and adult content sites. It was a choice by Motherless and their holding company, Kick Online, to egregiously ignore Texas law; the law has been found sound by the US Supreme Court, and enforceable by Texas. These are the facts of the situation. Everything else to discuss on this is feelings and opinion, unless there are relevant facts not yet shared or discovered. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48953591 | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-] | | Importantly "egregious" is also opinion. The other point of view is that they "very reasonably" ignored Texas law because they're not in Texas. The Supreme Court found that the law was valid, but that ruling doesn't mean it necessarily applies in a situation like this. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Article IV, Section I Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't give them nexus. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Verisign does business in Texas, right? Are they just allowed to do that with no restrictions? Texas can't say "no, you may not sell services to Texans?" | | |
| ▲ | Dylan16807 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | I'm talking about nexus over Kick. Verisign might be bound by Texas law, but they're not the one accused of breaking any laws here. This isn't a law for registrars, it's a law for websites. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | EmbarrassedHelp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The problem is that Paxton is attempting to do the same thing to every site that doesn't forcibly violate user privacy with mandatory age verification. Its part of Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundations goals, and its incompatible with privacy rights. |
|
| ▲ | what a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > it operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users Nonsense. There is no reliable way to not serve your content to people in Texas. If anything, Texas should compel ISPs to not serve it to their Texas customers. |
| |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | That's the point. Texas will argue that every website operates in Texas so they get to take down every website. |
|
