I don't think that is correct -- in fact its way too far reaching --

Would Sony be liable because they make camcorders that were used to make obscene videos?

No Way.

Would a hotel be crminally guilty or liable if he shoots inside the hotel and the video is later deemed to be obscene (illegal)?

A criminal case conviction requires a guilty state of mind. "Knowingly" that a crime is being comitted.

Fucking A mate !!!!



Also, what's obscene ???

Of course c.p. is out of question.
I have kids and i would hang by the balls the guy/girl that would play dirty tricks on them. In fact, i would do more........way fucking more (after hanging him/her/them by the balls that is, but that's another story)
With this said, it's about freedom of speech. Where do you draw the line ?

If it's consenting adults, why are you bugging them ?
They are not forced. If they like extreme stuff, i don't give a shit about it. Do your stunt if this turns you on.
Who are you to be a judge ?
Same thing as muslim extremis. Think like me or die ?

I find it amusing that while some opine that "this is because of bullshit US laws" others remark that "this must be protected by the Constitution" -- which way do you want it? US laws are against porn, or do they protect it?

It's always "because of the bad US and George Bush"

See how far you get with your porn in MOST of the countries around the world, home to MOST of the world's population. Nobody ever whines about China or for that matter, most Asian countries, nor do you hear complaints about the porn situation in the Muslim world.

A dozen or so European and other countries -- and the US -- tolerate porn to one degree or another. It's pretty much illegal in the other 170 or so countries, but the US gets the blame?

A private company objects to material its attorneys say opens a liability for them and everyone complains. Let's have a show of hands: how many of you are actually running a business?

i am always amazed at this idea kids seem to have here that "freedom" means being able to do anything, anywhere at anytime and being able to do so is somehow constitutionally protected.

I think everyone including myself agreed that if its in the TOS then they have every right to do what they did - the question was did they do it because they felt they were somehow obliged to 'enforce' US law on a nonUS entity.

It has been shown that it was in the TOS so there is no problem.... :2 cents:

That type of content is illegal in the US. The domains shouldn't have been on a US Registrar, nor hosted in the US which DirectNIC is doing by providing forwarding services.

So he violated their TOS and US law.

Not much you can do to defend that, and ignorance of the law is not considered a valid excuse in the US. He should have done his homework.

Anyone else with domains like that is crazy in the first place, but if you do do those kind you best not have anything connected to them being operated in the US cause you are taking a humongous legal risk.

Fuck yeah, sorry for the US users here but fuck me drunk those US laws are insane. Whats next they are going to ban.

But hey in a country where you can sue your wife because she is smoking in your house you can expect everything :321GFY

I am not surprised of that staement...

Consistent with the general moron attitude that he has always displayed...

So youwon yourself a prize... Congrats to all the winners ... :1orglaugh

http://www.paulkidby.com/images/badges/idiot.png

Isnt ICANN ultimately part of the chain and doing that as well? - so the whole web is governed by US law?

That cant be allowed to happen.

Again, I will add that in the DirectNic case it was in the TOS - different story...

I hope you are the first :321GFY

Aside from being off topic, you ARE an idiot ... ( new catch line for upcumming Maury Povitch shows...)

Neither of those countries or faith has ever declared being the " land of the free " or tried to portray themselves as freedom rich or democratic ....

I don't even know why you brought the shit head in this thread....:warning

registrars dont have anything to do with content..
why ?


what u.s. law did he violate, and what t.o.s. did he violate ? they agreed to register the domain full knowing it contained those keywords.. if they didnt want to register the domain they should have told him that from the beginning.. or given him ample warning..
anyone else with domains like what ? legal domains ?

Im not slamming you just curious to your take on it.

They rule the world or am I wrong and they do a great job

Fucking morrons

I think the dicey parts of this whole thing that will need to be meshed out at some point are:

1) Internet law/policy based at ICANN in the US <I am thinking a UN-ish body will eventually come into play>

2) Illegal to use or own a property with a naughty W O R D in it?

If I named a street on my property that is contained within the US "Murder Street" would I have that street name taken from me? Is having the word in a name problematic and assumed to be supportive of that illegal act?

It really brings up some interesting things. What if I had the misfortune of being named by my hippie parents Torture Smith. Would the government require that my first name be changed because of it's reference or implication to an illegal act?

Don't get me wrong, I don't support nasty fuckers online, but I am a fan of freedom, you know the pre-Bush concept of freedom...and this is potentially very problematic imo.

:/

NOW, if the guy had actual content related to those illegal acts, that's a wholllle nuthaaah story.

.

for all the mentally challenged people in this thread that cant read and refuse to take off the tin foil hats.

1) the domain wasn't deleted.
2) the domain wasn't deleted because of content on the domain
3) the domain wasn't deleted
4) the domain was placed on hold and they let him transfer it to another registrar because of thier legal concerns which include FEDERAL and STATE legal concerns and because its registration violated their TOS to begin with.

no one was hurt
no ones business was hurt
it was a non event



now its devolved into a conversation about rights, the constitution, bush, icaan etc.

dipshits.

That's about what I was going to say...

You are dealing with a U.S. based company, what did he expect?

Right on their page, ya don't even have to ask anyone.
Intercosmos Media Group, Inc.
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1150
New Orleans, LA 70130-6116
USA

You see thats what happens when you have a conversation - you get off the point and onto other peoples points of view etc.

We have gone off the point of the thread and moved on to other things - that will be this 'conversation' thing I mentioned before....

and when you hit puberty you will realise that 'dipshit' isnt a valid point of view....

Yeh, a conversation about rights...that IS a pretty wild stretch off topic here.

The horror.

:1orglaugh



That being said, I can understand a US based registrar having issue if it puts them at legal risk.

common scense is telling me that if you register not in US you can't be banned by US. Or US controlls everything?
And there is also possibility that the law in the place where you register changed.

someone starts a wrong and misleading thread... everyone reacts as if its world war 3, no one gets the facts, no one discusses the facts and everyone is basically expressing displeasure to what is obviously wrong info (and was admiteed to be wrong info early on) - some might say "dipshits" is a pretty fair characterization.

...but maybe i'm just a cynic

:1orglaugh

even more retarded is the fact that ultimately Bush has to come into it as if he is some omnipresent overseer of the Universe that can control time and gravity that everyone is afraid will steal their first born child.

How can a question be wrong or misleading?

and when did WWIII start?

Its a valid topic and has been debated all over the internet - grow up.

what the fuck, get with namecheap, they would never pull any crazy shit like that

Read the rest here - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12...mines_internet

:2 cents:
There are two possiblities going on in this situation that leap to mind.... 1)The content on the site was exclusively featuring one fetish/topic/genre of the adult industry and that fetish/topic/genre happens to be an illegal one. 2)DirectNic is yielding to complaints from someone, and decided to clamp down on the sites (which really sucks).

Not all domain registrars respond to #2 (and there are SO many ways to read that...), but some are definitely litigation-a-phobic, and therefore shut down the site at the first sniff of "sue".

I can't speak for all the registrars that choose not to roll-over, but I know at Moniker.com we prefer to give our clients the benefit of the doubt, and TALK to our client before any action of any sort is taken. (There is ALWAYS going to be someone who objects to SOMETHING on the web.) There is an exception to the "no shut down" guidline here at Moniker, and that is regarding childpornography. This doesn't mean cosplay, or a girl with pigtails where the model is over the age of majority.

I am not sure what the situation with DirectNic.com is, but I would be willing to bet that it was a combination of content & complaint.

Cheers!!

Bottomline is that directnic.com is not the place to have any adult domains registered.

NameCheap are great and I wouldnt use anyone else - but you have to be a little careful as they are an Enom reseller so you actually have to look at ENOM's TOS.

Going back a couple of years I had a domain termed because of some usenet stuff - the CEO of NameCheap came on here (GFY) and dealt with it personaly.