Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government The Internet United States News

KY Appeals Court Nixes Seizure of Gambling-Linked Domains 102

Posted by timothy
from the stick-to-the-whiskey-making dept.
davidwr writes "A state appeals court in Kentucky ruled that the state courts cannot seize domain names as 'gambling devices.' The court ruled that 'it's up to the General Assembly — not the courts nor the state Justice Cabinet — to bring domain names into the definition of illegal gambling devices.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

KY Appeals Court Nixes Seizure of Gambling-Linked Domains

Comments Filter:
  • Kentucky (Score:2, Funny)

    by samriel (1456543)
    I can hear the banjos floating over them thar internets now, clogging up the tubes...
  • by drewzhrodague (606182) <<drew> <at> <zhrodague.net>> on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:19PM (#26552069) Homepage Journal
    IANAL, but the Internet is a network, not a jurisdiction. I can't imagine they'd be able to do anything, other than block the site at the borders of the state, which is ridiculous.

    Sure, there is gambling on the Internet. Sure, they may not like it. Could they prevent Citizens from using those websites?
    • by internerdj (1319281) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:22PM (#26552107)
      The great firewall of Kentucky...
    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by Fluffeh (1273756)
      Oh these cute Americans. I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. At least the judicial system here had the common sense to maybe think that someone outside their borders might think otherwise to them :)
      • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:50PM (#26552549) Journal

        I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.

        And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England, ...?

        Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

        (And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)

        • by Red Flayer (890720) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @05:33PM (#26553101) Journal

          Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

          (And of course the federation has progressively encroached on the States' sovereignty ever since, eroding the safeguards intended to retard such behavior. That's exactly what was expected at the time. But it's also a separate issue.)

          That's a gross oversimplification. Many of the people who contributed to the Constitution were in favor of a strong Federal government (hence the term 'Federalist' used to describe them). While some were vociferously against a strong Federal government, it is mistaken to say that the United States was intended to be a federation like those you mention -- the original intent, as ratified by each of the states, was to be a much stronger union than any of those federations.

          I will not disagree that the federal government has subsumed much of the authority of the states; I will, however, point out that the original States were not considered to be independent countries, otherwise foreign relations would not have been assigned to the federal government.

          As for Indian tribes, they truly are more like sovereign nations, but there are entanglements that make them not quite independent.

          To get back to the meat of your post, though -- states do have certain sovereign rights, and while sometimes they act without considering the impact of their actions on other states, this is one reason why we have a federal government -- to mediate disputes. It is a valid point that the OP makes, that it's somewhat screwy for a state or country to make unilateral proclamations that affect the rest of the country (or world). It's a very provincial attitude that pisses other people off.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by AuMatar (183847)

          No, states in the US are *not* separate countries. That was true under the Articles of Confederation, but the states gave up their sovereign status by ratifying the Constitution. The states are now semi-autonomous legislative districts with delineated responsibilities under the nation the United States. Far closer to the Scottish parliament and the UK than to the EU, UN, etc.

        • by glwtta (532858)
          Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries. The States just happened to join a federation for dealing with other countries - a federation like Common Europe, NATO, the UN, the League of Nations, etc.

          That's a whimsical way of looking at it, but blatantly untrue. The US is, in fact, a federation, which means that its member states are explicitly not sovereign countries; just like Canada, Brazil, and the Russian Federation. Although the US states do make a lot mor
        • I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.

          And how does this differ from other countries - like China, Russia, England, ...?

          Well for one, US States aren't countries. They aren't soverign. They aren't self determining. US Federal Law overrides state law in clear and specific terms.

          Remember: "States" - and Indian Tribes - in the United States are separate countries.

          You live in a fantasy world. Why do you think this? The juri

      • by Hatta (162192)

        The funny thing is that this judge didn't even rule that Kentucky didn't have jurisdiction over domain names. He just ruled that domain names weren't gambling devices. If the legislature decides to classify domain names as gambling devices, they could try the whole thing over again.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          The funny thing is that this judge didn't even rule that Kentucky didn't have jurisdiction over domain names. He just ruled that domain names weren't gambling devices.

          That is the normal process for judges. If you find a flaw that is big enough to throw out the case, you don't nitpick every other possible question in the case - those are left for future work.

        • by gandhi_2 (1108023)

          Patriotism is bigotry.

          Only when your country is defined by your race. Are you German or something?

          • Patriotism is bigotry.

            Only when your country is defined by your race. Are you German or something?

            Carefully consider the definitions of "patriotism", "bigotry", and "race". It seems you may not understand them as fully as you believe.

            • by gandhi_2 (1108023)

              Patriotism as derived from Father as in patrilinear decent as the basis for most early agrarian societies that gave rise to the nation-state. In modern use, pride in country.

              Bigotry has no real etymology, only shifting meanings as the politically-correct deem it usefully applied to others. (like fascism). In modern use, intolerance of opinions or lifestyles other than ones familiar.

              Race delineates differentiable groups within the same interbreeding taxonomic group.

              Pride isn't a zero sum game. I can be proud

              • Man oh man...if only I had mod points.

                LMFAO--the image of a peace-loving bald Indian giving a long, educated dissertation, and finishing with "bitch"

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Hatta (162192)

            You can be bigoted over more things than race. When you believe your race is better than all others, that's racism. When you believe your country is better than all others, that's patriotism. In each case, you only support a group because you happen to be a member of it.

            • I would argue that patriotism is not the belief that your country is somehow inherently better than others. I think patriotism is simply a pride in your country that motivates loyalty, with no implications about other countries.

            • by Skippyboy (978787)
              Your definition of patriotism is very simplistic, and not altogether accurate.
              First definition off of Google - and one I wholeheartedly agree with says "love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it". That does not mean that you feel your country is superior - just that you love it and will sacrifice for it. In all honesty, I think that the US has a LOT of problems, and I do NOT feel that we are superior to other nations. BUT - I am still very patriotic.
              Google the definition of bigotry and it basic
      • by theaveng (1243528)

        >>>Oh these cute Americans. I love how each state thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules.

        Oh these cute Europeans. I love how each state in the EU thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. ;-)

        If Kentucky wants to ban gambling within its border, its certainly within its right to do so, just the same as Spain can ban gambling insides its border. The two are analogous situations

        • It's absolutely NOT an analogous situation: Kentucky is a tiny little redneck state...No more populous than Ireland, Norway, or Croatia.

          Comparing that to California, the 8th largest economy in the world...Now that's just wrong.

          • by gandhi_2 (1108023)

            Kentucky is a tiny little redneck state

            you really think it's acceptable to make that kind of generalization, just so long as you mean white. wow.

            And that 8th largest economy is now the 10th largest economy thanks to bullshit labor laws and wealth redistribution taxes driving companies to Nevada, Utah, etc.

            • Wow. Has political correctness gone that far? Poor rednecks, so oppressed. ROFL.

              • I don't think it's political correctness to refrain from generalizing an entire state of people negatively. It's just common sense; that tiny little state (ranked 26th in population, so I would suggest medium sized) has over 4 million people. You really find it intellectually honest to lump 4 million people into a single stereotype?
          • by theaveng (1243528)

            >>>It's absolutely NOT an analogous situation: Kentucky is a tiny little redneck state...

            True. Let me rephrase my previous post with a more-accurate comparison. "If Kentucky wants to ban gambling within its border, its certainly within its right to do so, just the same as Greece can ban gambling inside its border."

        • by Fluffeh (1273756)

          Oh these cute Europeans. I love how each state in the EU thinks it is pretty much the only thing in existence and the rest of the world can play by it's rules. ;-)

          Yes, but you don't see say a member country of the EU "claiming ownership" of a gambling website and shutting it down just because that member country doesn't allow gambling.

          That's the difference.

          I would have not had ANY problems if Kentucky had said "We don't allow gambling here, so lets put these websites on a blacklist". I would have likely said it was a bit backwards perhaps, but it's their choice really. What I think is laughable is that if it's illegal in Kentucky, then Kentucky thinks no-one in

          • by theaveng (1243528)

            >>>you don't see say a member country of the EU "claiming ownership" of a gambling website

            No. Instead you see states of the EU arresting people for displaying Nazi artifacts (Germany) or 3-strike loss of internet without trial (France) or blocking the wikipedia (UK). Um. Remind me again how the state of Kentucky is "worse" than these EU states? Hmmm.

            • by Fluffeh (1273756)
              Goodness me, you are still missing my point.

              All the examples you have used have no bearing on the overall point here. The point is that it's funny how Kentucky thinks that if something is illegal in Kentucky (Note that I am not judging what is legal/illegal here) that Kentucky is happy to take it away from the whole world just so that it doesn't have it there for it's citizens.

              What just about every other country does to enforce it's own laws affects it's own citizens. What Kentucky chose to do to enfo
        • by Stalky (31519)

          If Kentucky wants to ban gambling within its border, its certainly within its right to do so, just the same as Spain can ban gambling insides its border.

          Well, actually it's not gambling per se that the current administration wants to ban here; after all, Kentucky is one of the (if not just THE) world's premier Thoroughbred breeding centers, and we have always had racetracks that have always made the bulk of their revenue off the wagering of their patrons. We also have a state lottery. Indeed, the current ad

    • Re: ack (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Great. Just great. We have a story about KY, and the highest modded +5 has to inform us "IANAL."

      This is rather disturbing indeed.

    • by cosmotron (900510)
      IANAL and KY... sheesh. One's mind can get in the gutter pretty quick. ;-P
  • Great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CmdrPorno (115048) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:21PM (#26552101)

    I predict a bill will be introduced in the next session of Kentucky's General Assembly changing the definition of "gambling devices" to include domain names. Way to suggest an escape hatch for the attorney general and lawmakers...

    • Re:Great... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Chris Mattern (191822) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:30PM (#26552235)

      If it passed, the law would get struck down in the Federal courts as unconstitutional. States don't get to interfere in interstate commerce, and that includes trying to regulate internet domain names.

      • by theaveng (1243528)

        This isn't interstate commerce. Telling a company, "You can't create a website at www.gambling.state.ky" is no different than telling a company they can't build a gambling house in Louisville.

        Go visit Utah sometime. If you want gambling or porn, you have to drive to Nevada. Within the state, those activities are banned. (You can buy a copy of Playboy through the mail, but not in stores.)

        • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Ahem, you lack context.

          If Kentucky law considers something gambling devices, the Governor can seize those devices as property of the state, which is exactly what they attempted to do with 140 gambling domain names in 2008. That is very clearly interstate commerce, on par with seizing a casino in Las Vegas because Utahans can drive to it.

        • This isn't interstate commerce. Telling a company, "You can't create a website at www.gambling.state.ky" is no different than telling a company they can't build a gambling house in Louisville.

          Bad example, since they are seizing .com domains, not .ky (though you probably meant .ky.us). Perhaps if the gambling sites had some physical presence in the state (e.g. servers or employees) then Kentucky could try to shut them down, but most of those gambling sites aren't physically anywhere close to Kentucky.

          Go v

        • This isn't interstate commerce.

          Of course it is.

          Telling a company, "You can't create a website at www.gambling.state.ky" is no different than telling a company they can't build a gambling house in Louisville.

          On the contrary, it's very different. Prohibiting a gambling house in Louisville is regulating commerce in Louisville. Websites are accessible from anywhere in the US (and, indeed, anywhere in the world). Trying to control one is attempting to regulate interstate commerce.

    • Re:Great... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Translation Error (1176675) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:42PM (#26552413)
      That's the court's job. When disallow something in a ruling, they tell why they did so; they don't say, "You can't do this, but we're not going to tell you why."
      • by nog_lorp (896553) *

        What GP is saying is, the reason should have been more along the lines of "What the fuck are you doing, that is interstate commerce and totally out of your jurisdiction, you fucktard Governor!" instead of "Based on a minor ambiguity in definitions, we need the legislation to clarify whether they are going to let you do this... [trample on the property rights of out-of-state and international entities with no presence in KY]"

        • by flosofl (626809)
          I could be wrong, but I think it's the responsibility of the Federal Courts to determine whether something is a matter of interstate commerce. A State Court can only rule on matters as they relate to the state constitution. Again, I could be (and probably am) wrong, but that was my take on it.
    • I predict a bill will be introduced in the next session of Kentucky's General Assembly changing the definition of "gambling devices" to include domain names. Way to suggest an escape hatch for the attorney general and lawmakers...

      Hopefully if they do this somebody will register kentuckyslotmachines.com and put up an anti-gambling site on it.

  • What?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by imamac (1083405) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:22PM (#26552109)
    It's not the job of the judicial branch to make law? Who knew?
    • Re:What?? (Score:4, Informative)

      by LandDolphin (1202876) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @05:10PM (#26552797)
      No, they don't make law. However, they do invalidate unconsitutional laws.
      • by fm6 (162816)

        They do make law. Please note the difference between statue law, case law, common law, and administrative law. Only the first is done by legislation.

        • by imamac (1083405)
          I know they do. The point is that their job is o interpret it, not legislate by "interpreting" something that isn't even referenced in law.
          • by fm6 (162816)

            Oh for heaven sake, when you respond to a response, read the post the person's respnding to.

  • KY? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:22PM (#26552125)

    I thought this article was about something else entirely. Sure, Kentucky makes more sense, but its much less ... appealing.

    I'm disappointed. Disappointed and dry.

  • KY (Score:5, Funny)

    by MyLongNickName (822545) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:22PM (#26552129) Journal

    I saw KY, and thought it was some elaborate goatse troll.

  • by Snotman (767894) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:35PM (#26552313)
    when grabbing domain names owned by some other entity in the World? If any entity can just claim that a domain name is illegal, then what prevents me from grabbing KY domain names? Why would a state entity have a greater authority than any other political entity or individual? Who holds KY responsible for acting without a prerogative for this power? For instance, why don't the island nations hosting gambling companies grab all KY GOV domains just to be malicious? I would.
  • by dmomo (256005) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:40PM (#26552383) Homepage

    I'm not making a statement for or against this action. But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain. The site can still be up, it just cannot be referred to by the name anymore. It won't stop the the gambling, it will simply make it more difficult to describe (or find in this case). They cannot confiscate the IP address or shut down the machines if those sites are off shore.

    I guess this is the equivalent of keeping people away from a location by erasing it from their map.

    • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:57PM (#26552619) Journal

      But it's an odd thing when you think about it. A domain name is really just that. The name of a domain.

      "What's in a name?"

      In this case it's NOT just a name. It's an entry in a publicly-accessible and trusted database, mapping the name to a set of servers.

      THAT's what the state of Kentucky seized.

      And it's very valuable. I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue resulting from the disruption of their business (along with damage to their trademark) caused by Kentucky's successful appropriation of their domain records.

      • I'm waiting with bated breath for the suits demanding reimbursement for lost (legal!) revenue

        While it's a nice thought, it's not gonna happen.

        Amendment XI

        The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commence or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

        Which is generally interpreted to mean states have immunity from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders.

        • [The 11th Amendment] is generally interpreted to mean states have immunity from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders.

          I was under the impression it meant that, if a citizen of another state or foreign country wanted to sue (on civil issues) a state government it had to do so in that state's courts (or perhaps in the courts of a state where the act in question was committed and the defendant state had some "presence", i.e. assets worth seizing).

          Of course the stat

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Things don't sieze up when you lube up with KY.

  • by jambarama (784670) <jambarama.gmail@com> on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @04:45PM (#26552465) Homepage Journal
    Ignoring for the moment that bans on gambling are stupid & this was a purely protectionist move, what should kentucky have done instead? Lets pretend this law was a good one that we wanted to see enforced, how can a state enforce it?

    KY doesn't have jurisdiction over the organizations behind the gambling sites (or the domain registrars, another problem with this case) - so they couldn't force location aware IP blocks (which don't work anyway), they couldn't fine the organizations, or impose any normal civil/criminal penalties. In addition, ISP level blocks don't work & are costly, and the servers were also outside KY and couldn't be seized.

    I agree this was a stupid stupid order that violated due process, free speech, and commons sense. But if the websites & owners in Antigua (or wherever they're based) were selling US credit card numbers & the accompanying data, from servers in Antigua at http://identity-theft.ag/ [identity-theft.ag] for purposes of fraud - what could a state do to enforce anti-fraud laws? (assuming this was a state question) What could the feds do, apart from file a claim with the WTO? (which they have regarding gambling in antigua I believe).
    • Lets pretend this law was a good one that we wanted to see enforced, how can a state enforce it?

      Short answer: it cannot. It would be unconstitutional in at least two counts: if considered as commerce, states cannot interfere in interstate commerce. If not considered as commerce then it's equivalent to speech, and would violate the First Amendment.

      A state can prohibit gambling, for instance betting on horse races. But it cannot prohibit anyone to publish horse race results. What could the state of Kentucky d

      • by theaveng (1243528)

        >>>If not considered as commerce then it's equivalent to speech, and would violate the First Amendment.

        When I was in Utah I tried to buy the just-released copy of Playboy's College Girls. None of the stores sold it, and when I asked why they said it's illegal to sell such things in stores. So I ordered it via the mail. POINT: The first amendment applies in most situations, but not all. States still have a lot of power to regulate what happens within their borders.

        And of course gambling is forbi

    • by Abcd1234 (188840)

      KY doesn't have jurisdiction over the organizations behind the gambling sites (or the domain registrars, another problem with this case) - so they couldn't force location aware IP blocks (which don't work anyway), they couldn't fine the organizations, or impose any normal civil/criminal penalties. In addition, ISP level blocks don't work & are costly, and the servers were also outside KY and couldn't be seized.

      I know, it sucks, doesn't it? But if someone created, I dunno... say, a Bingo system that use

      • But it'll be hard, and wickedly expensive, so they better be sure their "values" are worth it before trying to embark on something like that.

        No need to worry there, they will just increase the sin taxes.

    • by hguorbray (967940)

      Well, they probably don't want to go to the WTO (assuming that the Feds would even let them for reasons of jurisdiction)

      Because the WTO has already ruled in Antigua's favor as to the legality of offshore internet gambling:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/30/us_gambling_ban_investigated/ [theregister.co.uk]

      and the fact that the US is allowing some forms of gambling (horse racing, lottery, etc) while unfairly restricting offshore and internet gambling (despite the fact the TVG conducts interstate horse race wagering online i

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dhalka226 (559740)

      What are they to do? Nothing. What should they have done? Not passed laws they can't enforce, or tried to enforce them in ways that are clearly not legal.

      Politicians simply need to stop thinking they can control the world or get everything they (personally) find morally objectable. It's silly enough when the federal government tries to enforce its morality on the Internet, but it's twice as silly when an individual state purports to have any authority over the rest of the world.

      Bad Stuff(tm) will al

      • by jambarama (784670)
        Right I understand that. But consider the hypothetical situation I proposed. What if instead of targeting poker sites, the law targeted fraud rings? Still a fact of life? If so, what about kiddie porn distributors? How about a how-to on suicide bombing & evading border patrols?

        At some point, some service will be offered over the internet that we just won't want around. Then what can a state, or even a country, do to enforce the law on an entity outside its jurisdiction? So far the answer seems
        • by Abcd1234 (188840)

          Then what can a state, or even a country, do to enforce the law on an entity outside its jurisdiction?

          That has *always* been a problem. Take poppy production in Afghanistan. I'm sure, if the US had it's druthers, it'd carpet bomb any such operations, but it can't. So it has to live with their existence. The same goes with gambling, kiddie porn distribution, etc, in foreign countries.

          The only way this is handled today is through international law, in the form of treaties. At least then, the US could put

        • by Snotman (767894)
          Yes, it is still a fact of life. Since KY has no jurisdiction over domain names, then tough is the answer. You only can legislate over what you have control of like their borders. So, setup a firewall into KY if KY thinks it should censor speech. Think about what the supreme court ruled yesterday - internet porn filters to protect children are unconstitutional based on freedom of speech. Apparently, KY must be flush with money in their state budget to take on a luxury like fighting in court whether they hav
  • This kind of thinking by the political leadership of Kentucky is what's wrong in general with politics and leadership in the USA.

    Look at whatever economic or social statistics you want about the Bluegrass State and you'll see that the state has more important problems to address. By diverting attention to this kind of absolute nonsense, the Kentucky political leaders expose themselves as the asshats they really are and reinforce negative stereotypes of the state.

    Next thing you know, they'll be legislating v

    • by samriel (1456543)
      As a matter of fact, that bill was never voted down. There it sits, still on the docket... We could literally re-define mathematics if we saw fit.

      /Indiana here
    • by BlueStrat (756137)

      Look at whatever economic or social statistics you want about the terrorist-sponsoring & harboring anti-West countries of the Middle-East and you'll see that the terrorist-sponsoring & harboring anti-West countries of the Middle-East have more important problems to address. By diverting attention to this kind of rabid hatred for the West & radical Islam, these Middle-East political & religious leaders expose themselves as the asshats they really are and reinforce negative stereotypes of thei

    • This kind of thinking by the political leadership of Kentucky

      I appreciate you disassociating Kentucky's citizens from it's current political leadership. When this story first broke a few months ago, Kentuckians were just as surprised as anyone. All that was known about the administration was that it intended to leverage gambling to bring more revenue into the state. What happened came completely out of left field as far as I'm concerned.

      I'm not embarassed or ashamed by what happened, however, since.. I didn't vote for him.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      the state has more important problems to address.

      You have obviously never met our leadership.

      "asshats"

      Nevermind, I guess you have.

      I was once at small meeting that Trey Grayson (secretary of state) held for some students, the day after he had gotten his iPhone 3G...30 minutes of the discussion were spent discussing it instead of his policies, work, etc. As funny as it was, I sometimes hate to think that that could be what's going on in the state capital...

  • That was one great, common sense judgement. Instead of allowing the executive branch to run free, they clearly stated it was up to the legislature to make a decision first. Imagine if the feds had judges this good. States and municipalities wouldn't be running around seizing just about anything their heart desired during arrests for everything from drugs to DUI abusing a vague and misguided statute when seen in it's intended form, and one that is beyond comprehension in how it has been applied.
  • by CuteSteveJobs (1343851) on Wednesday January 21, 2009 @08:26PM (#26554995)
    What sucked in this case was that GoDaddy handed over all those domains without a fight, but Network Solutions fought the suit for their customers and won. Network Soluions > GoDaddy.

    http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/kudos-network-solutions-standing-online-gambling-sites-100708.html [gambling911.com]
  • Well, it's nice that this was killed on appeal. Kinda sad it made it to this point though.

  • The court ruled that 'it's up to the General Assembly â" not the courts nor the state Justice Cabinet â" to bring domain names into the definition of illegal gambling devices.

    Yeah, up to the General Assembly. That is, when they gain the power to enter into the international treaties that it would require to do this.

    Do they not have one judge in that state who can step up and put an end to this shameful display of ignorance and idiocy?

  • At first, I couldn't understand what this ruling had to do with personal lubricants.
  • For the life of me, I can't understand why we continue to waste time and money trying to prohibit things that 1) don't affect anyone not involved in the transaction and 2) people are absolutely, positively going to do, no matter how illegal they are. People are going to gamble, use drugs, and patronize prostitutes, period. Why can't we just accept the fact and move on?

"There is nothing new under the sun, but there are lots of old things we don't know yet." -Ambrose Bierce

Working...