> The idea that a state court in one particular state can enforce such an absurd law against a company that likely has no business operations or servers in the state is ridiculous.

Two things of note regarding this.

First, note the office of origin: Texas Attorney General, which is currently occupied by Ken Paxton who is running for a tightly contested seat in the US Senate.

Second, a state court does not have jurisdiction beyond its borders for entities not operating within same.

> .com in particular has also been well proven over the past 5 to 10 years to be vulnerable to federal court orders to seize domains at the registrar level. ... What's new is this is being done from the state court level.

Which is why any attempt to enforce this ruling would be subject to removal to Federal court.

▲ rootsudo a day ago | parent | next [-]

And third, there was a default judgement.

I wonder what was the value of the domain on the open market, its quite a famous domain and probably had high lead generation..

But I agree with the parent comment.

This is so much state overstepping bounds and irony aside, so much for independence and rights by a state that proclaims personal agency comes first.

	▲	AdieuToLogic a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>> Two things of note regarding this. > And third, there was a default judgement. Unenforceable and meant strictly for political theater IMHO. > This is so much state overstepping bounds and irony aside, so much for independence and rights by a state that proclaims personal agency comes first. When a political party declares we are in a "post-truth" era and fully embraces nihilistic "the ends justify the means" tactics, the result is inevitable; `Take, hold, and increase power by any means necessary.` For if one does not hold oneself to a standard of ethical behavior, where the actions of others do not affect one's adherence to the rule of law, where the temptation to indulge in vendettas is not renounced, and where there is no accountability for engaging in any of the aforementioned, then there is no motivation for seeing those one disagrees with as anything more than an irritant to be dispatched forthwith. And we then find ourselves with elected officials wildly exceeding their mandate, such as here.
	▲	walrus01 a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Personal agency comes first in Texas only as long as you're a white heterosexual christian man with conservative political beliefs.

▲ 15155 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Second, a state court does not have jurisdiction beyond its borders for entities not operating within same.

Where did you come by this information?

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.

▲

walrus01 20 hours ago | parent [-]

If this was true in factual implementation, then Washington state's assault weapon ban would apply nationwide, which it decidedly does not. Or some particularly red state laws on abortion bans or abortion medication would apply in the other 49 states, which it does not.

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.

	▲	15155 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 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)?

▲ otterley a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]