TulipTools Internet Business Owners and Online Sellers Community

Quote:A Kentucky court case that seeks to regulate access to online gambling could have a dramatic impact on the conduct of e-commerce that would go far beyond whether Americans get to indulge in games of chance on the Web. Can a state court seize a domain name if a Web site is found in violation of local laws?

Quote:Lost in the furious run-up to the November elections was a Kentucky court ruling that could unravel a long-established legal argument supporting basic e-commerce activity: namely, that local or state governments cannot extend their reach into cyberspace to impose their own laws on a Web site.

Because that precept is considered so fundamental to e-commerce, it is likely that any challenge to it will eventually be dismissed or overturned. If not, the ramifications would be chilling for e-commerce -- and would certainly not be limited to online gambling, which is the subject of the Kentucky case...

full article: http://ecommercetimes.com/story/Kentucky...65111.html

Quote:"A reversal would have a chilling effect on e-commerce," he told the E-Commerce Times.

It could also have a chilling effect on free speech.

Personally, I think we should kick the hillbilly southern states and certain backward western states (Texas, Arizona, and NM come to mind) out of the union. We would then have far fewer crap laws (and R. wingnuts) to deal with. Confused

tolensmiley:

EFF and the ACLU filed a friends of the court brief on November 12th opposing the Kentucky ruling:

Quote:The Amicus Curiae took a decidedly different view of domain names, arguing they are more akin to maps or street signs that do nothing more than direct people to the location - in this case the unique internet protocol address - of a computer server. As such, a government action suppressing the use of a domain name violates the Free Speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, the groups said.

"Any order purporting to transfer domain name registrations from registrants to the Commonwealth of Kentucky raises serious First Amendment concerns because it would necessarily impede access to material that is legal not only in Kentucky but throughout the country and the world," they wrote. "Moreover, it would chill speech of all types, not simply the speech directly at issue in this case."

They went on to argue that Wingate's decision violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause by allowing Kentucky to impose its laws on the rest of the United States and world...

full article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/14/...ab_amicus/

EFF announcement: http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2008/11/13
Full text of the amicus brief filing: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/ky_v_d...riefky.pdf
A copy of the October court ruling: http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/ky_v_d...omains.pdf

mandy

regic

BellisimaJ.

BellisimaJ.

mandy