TheAgitator.com
Kentucky Rules the Internet
Tuesday, October 21st, 2008Kentucky’s Franklin Circuit Judge Thomas Wingate wrote has given Gov. Steve Beshear an early victory in his bid to control the Internet.
Ruling for the state, Beshear wrote, “The Internet, with all its benefits and advantages to modern-day commerce and life, is still not above the law, whether on an international or municipal level.”
The implications of that sentence are pretty profound. If it’s upheld, it would mean that web-based businesses would have to familiarize themselves with the laws of every government entity in the world, then tailor their websites to conform to local law. Otherwise, they’d risk having their domains seized by local governments.
Seems like the Internet porn industry would be the next logical target.
Sounds like there might be a problem establishing personal jurisdiction in this case.
An arm of the state ruling in favor of the state in a case about what the state may steal: unsurprising.
I’m picturing Buford T. Justice waiting behind an old billboard, sniffing TCP/IP packets, looking for someone in his jurisdiction placing an offshore bet or browsing S&M porn.
“The implications of that sentence are pretty profound.”
So is the mind-numbing stupidity and/or, I suspect, intentional intellectual dishonesty. Justice Wingate, in that sentence, has nicely trimmed the issue down to on eof above the law or not, but the no one honestly disputes that the internet is subject to SOME laws, it’s just a matter of which. And to simply argue that municipal laws apply to “The Internet” as a natural extenison of the conclusion that the internet is not above the law is like saying some random sick person with an unpsecified disease should take an unspecified type of medication because modern medicine is great!
Thankfully, I can’t see this opinion surviving for very long.
I’d like to see the rational response by the internet: refuse to do business there. No internet at all. Since people can access the internet through cell phones, telephone lines, cable, satellite, these will all have to be cut. I’m sure the good people of Kentucky would love returning to the 19th Century.
If you buy something out-of-state, you don’t pay sales tax. So we can soon expect this jackass to call for the surrender of all online merchant domains.
This is just what libertarians should hope for…a government that isn’t overthrown, unelected, impeached, etc. It’s a government that has legislated itself into irrelevance. Pass laws that you can’t possibly enforce, make a big stink about them, and people will begin to ignore you because you are clearly out of your mind and can’t do the things you claim you can.
Anti-homosexual laws rarely worked because gays fuck behind closed doors, drug laws rarely work because pot smokers smoke pot behind closed doors, and Internet standards don’t work because everybody’s cell phone and computer is the ultimate closed door.
All this garbage can be avoided, of course, by deferring to freedom in times of “I hate this, should I make it stop?”
How in the world did they have jurisdiction over this case? It seems to me that it’s an issue of interstate commerce and, as such, is a FEDERAL matter, not a state/municipality matter (unless the website is based in that state/municipality, of course).
Have any of these marching imbeciles actually thought about how they would go about enforcing this law, other than the sites voluntarily blocking all of Kentucky? I’m honestly curious how they think it would work, especially if the sites are run from out of the country. I’m guessing the bureaubots have never heard of The Pirate Bay.
Have any of these marching imbeciles actually thought about how they would go about enforcing this law, other than the sites voluntarily blocking all of Kentucky?
You know, that’s brilliant. Let every website block any uses with Kentucky domain names and watch the chaos that ensues. That’ll get Wingate et al. to rethink their position in a hurry.
Er, I guess that would be Kentucky ISP’s, not Kentucky domain names.
@Nathan A: My guess is the judge will send an order to the domain registrar or the TLD, ordering them to switch over the DNS entries.
My guess is that he’ll send over an order like that to the registrar, too. And my further guess is that they’ll frame it, hang it up in a conference room, and use it to entertain guests with “Look what some stupid rube in Kentucky sent us. Ha ha ha!” That’s exactly what I’d do, and I’m just one state away from Kentucky.
The guy’s an idiot and should simply be laughed at and ignored. He has no authority to demand anything from anybody outside his state. He needs to get over it.
If the registrar is not in Kentucky who exactly will enforce the order?
Don’t worry – the internet porn industry is larger than the state of Kentucky. They may make noises to keep voters happy, but God help the politician who tries an actual move against them. They will respond the way every other industry does, and they have piles of money.
… This will end well.
somebody needs to get a photo of that guy and do something subversive with it – stat!
oh right.
I love Mike L’s juxstaposition of words
“the internet porn industry …may make noises to keep voters happy”
I agree that jurisdiction will be problematic here: but not impossible. The states did try to tax internet commerce way back in the day, but it was too hard, the industry lobbied against it, and it was only a small %. As internet sales grow, at the expense of brick and mortar, the balance shifts.
My concern is not what would happen right now, but whether the Governors will get together and push for some Federal changes.
“Ruling for the state, Beshear wrote, “The Internet, with all its benefits and”
Judge Wingate wrote that, not the Governor.
Sometimes a judge makes a correct legal decision that is perplexing when viewed in the light of commercial or social reality. Such decisions serve to highlight problems with the laws on the books. It often takes considerable courage for a judge to issue such a decision, rather than simply waving his or her hands and mandating a reasonable outcome that is not supported by the law.
I’m not saying this is such a case. I haven’t read the opinion. It’s something to consider before calling the judge names, though.
There is already a federal law requiring ISP’s to block access to internet gambling sites. The unlawful internet gambling act (port act 2006) specifies:
(c) LIMITATION RELATING TO INTERACTIVE COMPUTER SERVICES.
(1) IN GENERAL.
Relief granted under this section against an interactive computer service shall-
(A) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access to, an online site violating section 5363, or a hypertext link to an online site violating such section, that resides on a computer server that such service controls or operates, except that the limitation in this subparagraph shall not apply if the service is subject to liability under this section under section 5367;
(B) be available only after notice to the interactive computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear are provided;
(C) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts indicating activity violating this subchapter;
(D) specify the interactive computer service to which it applies; and
(E) specifically identify the location of the online site or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be disabled.
All ISP’s must remove or disable links to unlawful internet gambling sites. Move over China, the US censorship has begun.
This really makes Kentucky look like a bunch of back woods dumbasses. Like the rest of the world is going submit to their court rulings. They might as well make it illegal for space aliens to abduct people and place a world wide ban on unicorn hunting.
They could require the ISPs to block the website by IP address. Basically, just do a dig on all 140 domain names and send the list to the cable and phone company… then they’ll put an ACL blocking traffic to those IPs (nevermind that IPs can and do change or that multiple, unrelated websites can share an IP) on their edge routers.
Don’t laugh, as ridiculous and technically unwieldy as that sounds it’s been tried before. In that case it was Pennsylvania trying to block access to child porn, and it was found to violate the first amendment… I suspect the same will hold true in Kentucky eventually.
I read the opinion, whose jurisdiction analysis is not simplistic, though it might be erroneous. A key fact in the court’s decision is that there are other gambling websites which implement geographic blocking (at the website level, presumably by examining IP addresses).
I misspoke, above, however: the question is whether in rem jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction, exists over the domain names.
I cannot see how the judge’s ruling jibes with the US Constitution’s commerce clause. The ruling means nothing.
chsw
I’m not sure I follow. While the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce, state legislation that is neither discriminatory against out-of-state business nor preempted by federal law, is constitutional. I don’t see how the ruling is discriminatory, however unworkable it turns out to be, and it doesn’t seem that there is a basis for arguing federal preemption here (I don’t think any of the defendants raised it).
If any ISPs have their servers in Kentuck, they’d better pull them out NOW before these yahoos get serious.
OMG! Yahoo. Serious. Totally unintentional. And about as funny as the actual “comedian.”
“I cannot see how the judge’s ruling jibes with the US Constitution’s commerce clause.”
You think a piddling quibble–or a quibbling piddle–like that will STOP them? Christ I hope you’re right.
Radley beware: your posts violate public policy in Iran and Canada; your domain may be subject to seizure!
The real problem is that an essential internet corporation, ICANN, is located in the US (specifically, in California) and that sometimes US authorities abuse this situation. Of course, this is not mere happenstance: the internet is an outgrowth of ARPANET. Nevertheless, ICANN being situated in the US makes it subject to the whims of US government agencies. These are commonly driven by internal US considerations rather than global ones. Thus here, Kentucky (a governmental entity in the US) ordered ICANN to transfer some domains, and ICANN agreed to do this pending a final judgement — but without fighting the ruling themselves.
I’m not saying that having ICANN headquartered in Canada and subjected to Canadian “anti-discrimination” must-discriminate laws would be better. Having ICANN be a UN body would be even worse. Nevertheless it needs to be understood that the Internet is subject to more US control that one naively expects from its global nature.
I don’t see how the ruling is discriminatory,
It’s discriminatory because Kentucky allows internet gambling of certain types (mainly horse racing) from companies located in the U.S., but presumably now will not allow it for William Hill from England. This is the same argument that Antigua used to win their case against the US with the WTO. Of course, the US has decided to ignore any WTO ruling they don’t agree with.
“It’s discriminatory because Kentucky allows internet gambling of certain types (mainly horse racing) from companies located in the U.S., but presumably now will not allow it for William Hill from England.”
I could be wrong, but I think all legal betting in Kentucky is parimutuel. It seems to me that poker is basically parimutuel, but regular sportsbooks, like William Hill, certainly are not.
Radley, I’ve never seen anything on this site that would get you in trouble in Canada. Lior, can you point to any specific posts?
Canada does not allow one to criticize ANY government institution, regardless of where it is located, or how silly it is. This is punishable by being force fed Tim Hortons donuts and Molson Canadian until you explode.
Kentucky allows horse racing, operates a state lottery w/PowerBall and scratch-offs. The proceeds largely support political campaigns and freeing up education money from the general fund budget.
Gov. Beshear wants to legalize casinos, and these sites would take money away from them. If the house is going to take a rake, apparently the house’s house needs something on the order of twice that amount.
The NY attorney general should use this precedent to assume control of KY operated Amazon.com in regards to the sales tax collection issue they have harassed Amazon associates about.
/ From KY
I like bluegrass, but as long as I have my teeth, no thanks.
Actually I like just about any kind of grass.
Sin = without
Semilla = seed
Sinsemilla = without seed
Shit, I learn something new every day.