The Commonwealth of Kentucky has siezed 141 domain names, and a circuit court has upheld the decision, despite having questionable (if any) jurisdiction to do so.

Comparisons to the siezure abound, but two excellent analogies are made by a DNN reader: Could the Commonwealth sieze an out-of-state brick-and-mortar gambling establishment after Kentucky residents cross state lines to gamble there? Can a Muslim nation sieze an American site selling bikinis, if its citizens are caught looking?

In an excerpt from the Kentucky court´s decision quoted on Domain Name News, the judge asserts that the nature of the Internet is such that it ¨transports the virtual premises¨ to Kentucky homes - this is the reasoning by which the court claims the crimes took place in Kentucky.

Two conditions in the ruling would allow the domains to be retained by their owners without a challenge of the ruling. Those names which are only advertisements and sources of information (including parked sites) will not be taken; and those domains which block users via geographic detection will also be spared.

In its response to the ruling, the Internet Commerce Association said that the geo-blocking solution is ultimately infeasible, because domain owners should not be forced to be aware of, and to enforce, every regional content prohibition on the planet.

News report compiled by Nathan Hawks