Kentucky Appeals Court Tells Kentucky To Hold Off Seizing Domains

from the wait-just-a-second... dept

While a lower court in Kentucky had agreed to allow the state to seize 141 domain names as being "illegal gambling devices" despite having nothing to do with the state of Kentucky, other than being available on internet connections there (and everywhere else), an appeals court has now issued an injunction to stop the state from seizing the domains until the appeal can be heard. While we still have to wait for the full appeal, at least damage won't be done in the interim.

There's one other interesting note in the article, which is that Kentucky's Attorney General appears to be trying to distance himself from the case. Even though most state actions are normally taken by the AGs office, in this case, the lawsuit was filed by the state's Secretary of Justice and Public Safety (there's some question if it's legal for this person to bring the suit). Either way, the AG's name was on the case, but he's now specifically asked to have his name removed from the case. That seems like quite a statement. When even the Attorney General of the state wants nothing to do with the lawsuit, perhaps it's time for the state to admit it overstepped some legal bounds.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Poster, Nov 19th, 2008 @ 5:27pm

    "perhaps it's time for the state to admit it overstepped some legal bounds"

    And yet, I can almost assure you it won't. Much like how California keeps wanting to pass that unconstitutional videogame law, despite knowing it's unconstitutional and it'll cost the taxpayers even more money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 19th, 2008 @ 5:44pm

    Or gay marriage, no matter how many times the voters are against it or even if it's a part of the State Constitution (which it is now).

    Oops. Did I say something unpopular and not PC?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      X, Nov 19th, 2008 @ 6:04pm

      Re:

      Off topic. I don't understand why people care so much about something that has absolutely nothing to do with them. Unless, of course, you secretly crave the attention of the same sex and need a law to help reduce your urges.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Rob (profile), Nov 19th, 2008 @ 6:29pm

        Re: Re: (off topic)

        Off Topic: What do you mean it has nothing to do with them? If you subscribe to all that Christian mumbo-jumbo, the definition of marriage has a lot do with you, and others committing blasphemies against your religion.

        Separation of church and state died the day marriage was granted special rights and required money to enter one. Also, the will of the people as whole is a little thing called democracy. So, again, it has a lot to do with everyone.

        On Topic: Thank god Kentucky is at least looking into this again.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 12:25am

          Re: Re: Re: (off topic)

          "Also, the will of the people as whole is a little thing called democracy. So, again, it has a lot to do with everyone."

          Yes, so in that vein if the majority want to burn "witches", enslave black people and castrate homosexuals, it's all cool that's democracy in action.

          I'm not sure what's worse a bigot or someone with such insanely flawed logic, like you.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          BTR1701, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 10:08am

          Re: Re: Re: (off topic)

          > If you subscribe to all that Christian mumbo-jumbo,
          > the definition of marriage has a lot do with
          > you, and others committing blasphemies against
          > your religion.

          Since there is no state religion allowed in the USA, no one is entitled to a law prohibiting others from blaspheming their religion, per the 1st Amendment.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            IronyofLife, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 11:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: (off topic)

            @BTR1701

            "Since there is no state religion allowed in the USA, no one is entitled to a law prohibiting others from blaspheming their religion, per the 1st Amendment."

            Your logic leads us to believe that, just because it is against someone's beliefs to do something, you are therefore automatically allowed to do it.

            It is also prohibited by the Christian faith to commit murder. Apparently, you can kill me? Or, you can steal my belongings? Cheat me? Bodily injure me?

            There's a limit. It is called morality. BTR, your way of thinking would lead to anarchism.

            Congratulations to you and your kind for ruining the world.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Ben, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 1:04pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (off topic)

              So IronyofLife, go a little heavy on the crack today? BTR never suggested that you are allowed to do something simply because it's against someone else's beliefs. He stated that just because it's against someone else's beliefs, that doesn't mean you can't do it. How would you feel if you couldn't eat pork because that would offend Jewish people or if you couldn't drink caffeinated drinks because it would offend Mormons not to mention the whole slew of things we couldn't do because it would offend the Amish. Gambling falls into this category because many forms of it are legal in Kentucky and it is not seen as immoral to a large majority of the state. Murder, theft and bodily harm do not fall into this category because they are illegal in Kentucky and are morally wrong to just about everybody regardless of religious views. That's why your argument is flawed and I'm of the view that it's actually people like you destroying this world through your inability to reason and use logic instead of overblown attacks on something you can't comprehend.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Søren Nissen, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 12:06am

      Re:

      Bo, anonymous coward, you didn't say something "not PC," you said something vastly bigoted and completely off topic, and you hid it behind anonymity, probably because you're a coward at heart. gg no re.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 12:34am

    Rob: the founding fathers of this country created checks and balances because they didn't want to entrust the fate of all this country's people to the majority's decision.

    Consider this: for many years, the majority of American citizens supported slavery. While several of the enlightened thinkers of the time recognized that this was fundamentally immoral and wanted to act on this issue, they knew that freeing the slaves would be immensely unpopular, possibly enough to destabilize the fledgling nation. That's why the constitution had a clause (in Article I, Section 9) preventing Congress from stopping the importation of slaves.

    Also, there are no legal ramifications for committing a blasphemy against someone's religion. If there were, our country would have to disband, due to the fact that certain fundamentalist sects believe the United States to be the land of Satan, and all its inhabitants deserving of hell. If you'd like, you can write to your representatives, you can protest, you can threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue unless your viewpoint becomes law, but I recommend that you consider what damage such laws can do in light of more fundamentalist forces.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Ben, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 5:45am

    Why just gambling websites?

    Is there a reason why Kentucky is solely targeting gambling websites and not other websites that promote or facilitate actions that are illegal in Kentucky? I'm in no way in favor of them being allowed to seize website outside of their jurisdiction (or inside, for that matter), but why target gambling sites and not child pornography hosters, sellers of illegal drugs and weapons, hosters of someone else's copyrighted material or any other websites involved in questionable or illegal activity? Is it because there's no state run alternative to these other sites that might harm the state's own revenue or is it something else?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 6:49am

      Re: Why just gambling websites?

      Maybe because Kentucky has this little thing called THE KENTUCKY DERBY!!! They are trying to limit competition for their taxed enetities within the state. Internet betting on horse racing is rising in popularity and reducing the draw of the tracks. Personally I don't go to the horse races to gamble so much as to have fun, I do gamble while I'm there but it's not something I would enjoy doing in my own home. Maybe instead of worrying about internet gambling Kentucky should concentrate on getting the morons out of office. Can the voters of Kentucky throw their elected/appointed officials out of office for being incompetent? It would be nice.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      JMG, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 8:52am

      Re: Why just gambling websites?

      Kentucky sees millions of tax dollars annually go to Indiana because of their casino boats. The current governor made expanded gambling (casinos) part of his campaign last year. Nothing has happened other than stonewalling from those with a hardon for protecting Kentuckians from the evils of games of chance.

      The horse racing industy is huge in Kentucky. In Kentucky, we're fine with internet gambling as long as it's horse racing. Beshear is protecting his interests with them by claiming dominion over these sites all the while claiming it's for the children. I'm sure he'd love to put up a fence along the Ohio River to prevent people from crossing into Indiana to gamble to help out the horse racing industry. His plan...Well, Churchill Downs' plan is to have the tracks run Kentucky's casinos. Which I find amusing since they have no experience with any gambling other than horse racing. Their forray into online gambling didn't go very smoothly for those looking to wager on the Kentucky Derby this past year either. Millions of dollars were wagered elsewhere because the Churchill Downs website was unable to take bets.

      If gambling ever does make it to the ballot, I just hope that Kentuckians will get their heads out of their asses and approve it. The state needs to increase its tax revenue. Gambling is a way to do so. A casino in Louisville (downtown Louisville, not at the track) would kill Caesars (excuse me Horseshoe). A couple in Northern Kentucky would kill Aztar and probably Belterra too.

      I just don't understand why Kentucky can't get this approved. The argument of the morality of benefitting off the sins of another just blows my mind. The way Kentcuky sees it: horse racing is the sport of kings while craps leads to prostitution, organized crime, broken homes, etc. What kind of reasoning is that?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 20th, 2008 @ 12:46pm

    >>BTR, your way of thinking would lead to anarchism.
    >>Congratulations to you and your kind for ruining the world.

    BTR1701 FTW!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This