If this continues, we could see increased multifurcation of the Internet. Consider the possibility of retaliation against western outlets by China, Russia, Iran and others within their respective spheres of influence.
The First Amendment does not prohibit content neutral regulations on trade with foreign states under Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, abd I don’t see an argument that it would prohibit enforcing such regulation by seizure of domains registered by a US entity for an foreign party in violation of those regulations.
> Is there a foreign country exception?
Yes, the first amendment applies differently to US government actions overseas than domestic actions, but this is a domestic action and the more relevant fact is that “Freedom of the Press” means the government is restrained in regulating what you print with your press, but it doesn't mean that if you are associated with a (notional or genuine) journalistic institution you are immune from content-neutral laws of general applicability.
I think we both know the sanctions are not for the benefit of the planet. Also, real people suffer because of the sanctions, and you really shouldn't get to call the shots on who that is.
It was originally administered by the Defense Data Network, transitioned to the National Science Foundation for a while, and in 1997 the United States Department of Commerce assumed authority over all generic TLDs.
presstv.ir remains unaffected because it is not subject to US law.
13 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 31.9 ms ] threadAre Western outlets generally allowed Chinese domains without active involvement of and censorship by the Chinese government?
Only US jurisdiction domains, it was still accessible in others like
https://www.presstv.ir/
Which begs the question what was US reason or objective besides looking like a bully
Enforcing the sanctions regime which applies to US parties, including domain registrars in the US.
Also, its disappointing. The west needs to normalise relations with Iran. Europe are on it. It's only the US that won't face the facts.
The First Amendment does not prohibit content neutral regulations on trade with foreign states under Congress’s Commerce Clause powers, abd I don’t see an argument that it would prohibit enforcing such regulation by seizure of domains registered by a US entity for an foreign party in violation of those regulations.
> Is there a foreign country exception?
Yes, the first amendment applies differently to US government actions overseas than domestic actions, but this is a domestic action and the more relevant fact is that “Freedom of the Press” means the government is restrained in regulating what you print with your press, but it doesn't mean that if you are associated with a (notional or genuine) journalistic institution you are immune from content-neutral laws of general applicability.
Keeping the price of oil high will encourage the transition to EVs.
It was originally administered by the Defense Data Network, transitioned to the National Science Foundation for a while, and in 1997 the United States Department of Commerce assumed authority over all generic TLDs.
presstv.ir remains unaffected because it is not subject to US law.