It sounds like he will have to file a law suit in order to have this domain name reinstated. He also appears to understand the rule and precedent's relevant to the situation.
Absent from his case list was any mention of a similar domain seizure being restored after a court injunction or judgement.
Is anyone aware of a ceased .us. domain name being reinstated after a court challenge in the United States?
It seems to me the issue has nothing to do with nazis and has everything to do if the "seven words policy" is constitutional in the first place. The majority of what you write here seems to have an underlying assumption that the domain company cares about the political nature of your speech. Consider the hanlon's razor explanation and focus on if such a company should have the right to disallow domains containing profanity in the first place.
Also, if I am going to play devil's advocate, it may be that the content of the site is irrelevant for determining the constitutionality of transferring the domain. Since 'fuck' can be interpreted in a sexual context, there is a plausable argument to be made that (assuming the purpose of the domain is irrelevant) it doesn't pass the noted tests to be protected speech since many people would consider it a profane statement. Unlike "the draft", "Nazis" are people not an abstract process, so the use of 'fuck' in that context may be more likely to be interpreted as obscenity.
> Since 'fuck' can be interpreted in a sexual context
Agreed. I think he could've simply dropped the u in just the domain name - fcknazis.us - and used f*cknazis in the logo / branding on home page. Or done a play on the word like fcuknazis.us (also just for the domain name :)
Then he might have a stronger case for arguing that fck or fcuk is not sexual.
You should familiarize yourself with the Miller Test[0] that I cite in the post. Even if it is expressly sexual (e.g., I literally made a degrading pornographic film of Nazis having sex) it would still have an exceedingly strong case under the third prong of the Miller Test.
You assume that the content of the site is relevant. Do you know this?
If not, it's just as likely (from an outside observers pov) the domain is using 'fuck' as a euphemism for 'have sex with' as it is the one you intended.
In the case where the purpose of the domain is irrelevant and the registration of the domain itself (and its publication to DNS) is the speech in question my armchair assessment is this may actually be untrodden ground.
This is not a "company", it's a government body (the FCC) using a contractor (Neustar) to fulfill one of their obligations (.us TLD). Neustar must operate "constitutionally", otherwise the FCC may not use them.
While it is indeed the "Fuck" that got my domain flagged, the review system should have caught this as obviously protected speech.
You also don't quite understand obscenity, there's no way the Miller test passes for Fuck Nazis. "Fighting Words" is an entirely different concept, and it is highly unlikely that "Fuck Nazis" fails those tests either for a multitude of reasons.
8 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 34.7 ms ] threadAbsent from his case list was any mention of a similar domain seizure being restored after a court injunction or judgement.
Is anyone aware of a ceased .us. domain name being reinstated after a court challenge in the United States?
> Is anyone aware of a ceased .us. domain name being reinstated after a court challenge in the United States?
I'm not aware of any off the top of my head, but that would be a good one to add if anyone does know.
Also, if I am going to play devil's advocate, it may be that the content of the site is irrelevant for determining the constitutionality of transferring the domain. Since 'fuck' can be interpreted in a sexual context, there is a plausable argument to be made that (assuming the purpose of the domain is irrelevant) it doesn't pass the noted tests to be protected speech since many people would consider it a profane statement. Unlike "the draft", "Nazis" are people not an abstract process, so the use of 'fuck' in that context may be more likely to be interpreted as obscenity.
Agreed. I think he could've simply dropped the u in just the domain name - fcknazis.us - and used f*cknazis in the logo / branding on home page. Or done a play on the word like fcuknazis.us (also just for the domain name :)
Then he might have a stronger case for arguing that fck or fcuk is not sexual.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
If not, it's just as likely (from an outside observers pov) the domain is using 'fuck' as a euphemism for 'have sex with' as it is the one you intended.
In the case where the purpose of the domain is irrelevant and the registration of the domain itself (and its publication to DNS) is the speech in question my armchair assessment is this may actually be untrodden ground.
While it is indeed the "Fuck" that got my domain flagged, the review system should have caught this as obviously protected speech.
You also don't quite understand obscenity, there's no way the Miller test passes for Fuck Nazis. "Fighting Words" is an entirely different concept, and it is highly unlikely that "Fuck Nazis" fails those tests either for a multitude of reasons.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/supreme-court-ru...