Are those states somehow exempt from the United States Constitution's requirement to uphold "judicial Proceedings of every other State?"

▲

rurban 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Texas? They'll rather call for the military to protect their "freedoms" (of calling arbitrary court decisions).

▲

walrus01 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company that, for example, hosts the website of a medical office that ships abortion medication to Texas? That they would send the WSP to a colo in Tukwila near Seattle to pull the plugs on the servers? I highly doubt it.

If the Texans don't like something in another state and want to attempt to shut it down, they can bring an action in federal court.

▲

15155 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> Do you actually think that an elected state attorney general in Washington or California or New York would shut down a hosting company

I think that if there were any disagreement between the States, it would go to the Supreme Court for an ultimate decision. This is not the default. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States:

> Article III

> Section I

> The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

> Section II

> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Absent a controversy - i.e. a willingness to object: full faith and credit applies.

▲

walrus01 19 hours ago | parent [-]

So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court. Texas law enforcement doesn't get to just roll into another state and start grabbing servers. Nor is another state likely to obey such an order issued by a Texas State court without it going through federal court first.

Individual state courts and legislatures, as I'm sure you know, have a lot of latitude and room for difference from other states but only within their own physical boundaries. Weed being very legal in WA and totally illegal in ID is a fine example of such. Their jurisdictions do not extent beyond their borders. There's a reason why we have federal courts, laws, and federal law enforcement agencies.

▲

15155 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> So as I said, the matter gets escalated to a federal court.

If it's challenged. Has that happened here? SCOTUS has already declined to get involved - implicitly ratifying Texas's statutes.

> Their jurisdictions do not extent beyond their borders.

If you break a law in Texas and flee to California, California will extradite you. The internet is the unique element here, because it's globally accessible. Our laws still exist regardless of technology.

What happens if Texas says: "Verisign: you can't do business within our borders?" They'd surely be within their rights to do that. What else can Verisign practically do but comply?

▲

walrus01 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Was anyone who broke the law in texas? It's a euro porn site publishing content on servers outside of Texas. With a domain name whose ultimate root is a company in Virginia.

The fact that verisign (and various other registrars of .com) have other unrelated clients with other domain names who may be in Texas is unrelated.

▲

15155 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> Was anyone who broke the law in texas?

Irrelevant. Texas has jurisdiction over anyone doing business in Texas, and may enforce all judgments, writs, and other decrees using third-parties who also do business in Texas (Verisign decidedly does) and typically throughout the United States.

The law isn't an autistic computer system; this isn't about "fairness." This is about "what can be enforced." This controversy is more of a political and diplomatic issue than a legal issue.

▲

walrus01 19 hours ago | parent [-]

I work for an ISP and we host several LGBTQ activist sites and non profits, does the Ugandan government have jurisdiction over the company I work for because the content is illegal in Uganda?

I'm sure a creative and bigoted Ugandan government lawyer could argue that our client is "doing business" in Uganda by publishing LGBTQ content that is accessible to internet users there.

Does somebody shitposting on a php bulletin board hosted by one of our colo customers insulting the king of Thailand mean that we're subject to judicial sanction in Bangkok? Should I expect to be extradited to stand trial in Kampala? It makes just as much sense.

	▲	15155 19 hours ago \| parent [-]
		What power does the Ugandan or Thai government have to enforce their laws? That's really what matters - might makes right. Does Verisign lose anything of value by being forced to stop doing business in those countries? Texas has the power of being a member state of the United States. The Constitution grants Texas the ability to enforce its judgments throughout the lands and upon its own businesses.