| ▲ | walrus01 2 days ago |
| It is known to have servers, offices, employees, bank accounts, business licenses in texas? |
|
| ▲ | monksy 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Motherless.xxx's tracepath is:
https://ipinfo.io/185.107.81.233 Hosting out of the netherlands. Kick their owners are globally headquarted in Australia, their US operations are out of SFO, CA. |
|
| ▲ | jasonfarnon 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why do you think that is necessary for jurisdiction? It's doing business with TX customers every time it serves an ad to someone there. The law governing sufficient contacts for internet companies has been pretty well established since the 2000s. |
| |
| ▲ | walrus01 2 days ago | parent [-] | | > 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... | | |
| ▲ | inigyou 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Uganda would certainly issue a judgement against you. The difference would be their inability to enforce it because none of the relevant parts of the DNS operate in Uganda. It's now well-established on the Internet that a court may force anyone in the path to enforce their decision. ISPs are regularly forced to block foreign websites, without any implication of liability on the ISP's part, simply because the ISP has the technical ability to block them and the court has the ability to enforce an order on the ISP. This is the case when Spanish ISPs have to block Cloudflare. The same applies to the DNS, which is based in America. Thanks to Texas for publicizing this DNS vulnerability which must urgently be fixed. | |
| ▲ | jasonfarnon 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not sure what your point is. Courts generally follow precedent, not your opinion about what is or isn't logical. Do you want me to explain to you the nature of extraterritorial jurisdiction, extradition treaties, etc., distinguishing your hypothetical from this case? I don't have a dog in this fight. If you really want to understand what's going on I would suggest you simply look up the complaint this AG filed, which will give the basis for jurisdiction, which the court evidently accepted. | | |
| ▲ | walrus01 2 days ago | parent [-] | | There's also more than ample legal precedent that only the US federal government has the authority to regulate inter-state commerce, which is clearly what .COM is as an entity run by VeriSign, and internet traffic/telecommunications traffic that crosses state borders. There's such a vast body of law in telecom law that the federal government regulates long distance telecommunications traffic that I could paste citations to dozens of court cases going back 75 years. International internet traffic from an entity whose servers aren't in Texas isn't subject to Texas jurisdiction. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | > International internet traffic from an entity whose servers aren't in Texas isn't subject to Texas jurisdiction. Besides the United States Constitution entirely invalidating this argument: Does Verisign sell and/or provide services to Texans? |
|
|
|
|
