Guns are good and equal freedom. Boobs are bad and lead to degeneracy. I hate this place.

Items require payments which usually would be a credit card. Kids cannot get a credit card on their own as far as I know so the parents have to be involved in some way. (Obviously there are alternatives like paypal, prepaid debit cards, etc but it is quite a bit harder to actual get the item).

Correct, I was referring to the websites that have implemented only the most basic fig leaf of legal compliance (ca. 2001 era HTML popup of "are you over 18?") to be able to browse the product selection, even of items that aren't serialized/FFL 4473-requiring firearms receivers. Like, yes, I totally need to confirm that I'm over 18 to look at this Streamlight flashlight.

It also makes complete and total sense that you can sell your body by joining the Marines as an 0311 MOS rifleman/grunt on your 18th birthday, but you're going straight to hell if you have an alcoholic drink before you're 21. I don't know if I've ever met a European who doesn't think the US's alcohol age laws are weird.

> If this was true in factual implementation, then Washington state's assault weapon ban would apply nationwide, which it decidedly does not.

And when Viramontes v. Cook County is decided within the next year, it won't apply in Washington either.

Today, FFLs from other states won't ship these arms into Washington - how is that not "apply[ing] nationwide?" FFLs in Idaho will not sell you an AR-15 with a Washington license despite it being legal to do so federally.

> Or the court decision obligating the city and state of New York to issue concealed pistol permits to people who go through a process (even for non residents) would apply in Washington DC or Chicago, which it also does not.

This is an active area of debate, and a very poor analogue to use - firearms are a Constitutionally-protected and unique area (as is free speech, but SCOTUS has already effectively found in favor of Texas in this case.)

Why does my marriage license or driver's license apply nationwide but not my CCL? Why do I even need a CCL - there's zero historic precedent for it (Bruen)?

I mean he's probably fine as long as he does absolutely nothing to challenge the status quo or anyone powerful in India. Which doesn't really seem like an optimal situation for a censorship resistant domain. There's a vast quantity of examples of Indian state and federal government authorities issuing court orders to "remove" content from the internet over the past 25+ years. Take a look at some of the citations in the Wikipedia page I linked.

There is no difference in principle. That is equally unacceptable.

There is a difference in kind, because it becomes impossible for the global internet to exist if thousands of local jurisdictions are being given their way, with conflicting local legislation resulting in global takedown when it is impossible to comply with two different jurisdictions. So this is noteworthy as an escalation of an already existing problem into an even worse direction.

---

Rate-limit edit:

> Which is why the Internet hasn't been global in a long time, and looks pretty different in China vs EU vs Russia.

China and Russia aren't part of the global internet because they have national firewalls and segregated themselves. The EU very much is, and with limited exceptions the internet doesn't look much different from the US, the EU, Japan, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Thailand, Brazil, or South Africa. It seems absurd to suggest that the internet isn't global when I'm in all likelihood talking to you from the opposite side of the world and this is the norm. And what is the point you're making? That we should embrace the China/Russia model and give not only every country but also every state/province/city its own Great Firewall?

GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal _of your personal data_ from the internet _upon your request_, which is very different from a US state trying to remove a website hosted in and run by a company incorporated in another country.

And geo blocking may be functionally impossible but the law cares about intent and actions, not if you prevented someone who used a VPN or lied about their location from using your service.

HN ignores GDPR, in particular Article 17, and it hasn't been taken down from the internet or even blocked in the EU.

> GDPR Article 17 expressly requires the removal of things from the global internet

...as part of compliance with GDPR, if you choose to be compliant. Please name one instance of the EU suing and successfully removing an American website from the internet under this article, or any part of the GDPR? Considering we're talking about an actual case of the US seizing the domain of a European website, whataboutting a hypothetical with the GDPR which has never done the reverse despite being in force for 10 years is incredibly disingenuous.

---

Rate-limit edit:

> Are you saying that you don’t think that the GDPR text is written to apply outside of the EU, or that it does say that but it’s not relevant because it’s not viable for anybody to enforce that?

The GDPR is European legislation, written for the territory the EU has legal jurisdiction over. Why would anybody think it's meant to apply outside of the EU? Plenty of businesses choose to operate by two sets of privacy policies, one where they continue fucking over their American users and one where they adhere to the GDPR for European users, and that is perfectly acceptable. There is no "think" about it, the legislation obviously does not apply outside the EU, nor is it intended to.

Two quotes from the writ filed support my position.

  The court finds that the following domain name is
  owned by Defendant ...

  Defendant is not a resident of this state and is
  a foreign corporation.

The aforementioned does so. Until and unless you can show how the Defendant has an established presence within the State of Texas, such that its jurisdiction is applicable, it is difficult for me to consider your position considered and/or informed.

> You're going to have give us

To be fair, only some of "us" are unwilling to read a two-page document to be informed about a topic under discussion. The words you're looking for are "Defendant is not a resident of this state and is a foreign corporation."

> It's doing business with TX customers every time it serves an ad to someone there

By this same logic if my web server physically located in Canada, the USA or Iceland serves LGBTQ content to people in Uganda I should be held liable or dragged into a Ugandan court under some of Uganda's anti-LGBTQ laws?

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=uganda+an...