This is one of those titles that isn't technically a lie but at the same time you can tell they were fully aware it isn't the most accurate way to portray the truth as is evident by the way they worded the same thing in the opening line.
Is what is surprising about this ban that it included 3 sites in one go or is it that it's more broad in the ways they are banned (or both)?
So, I’m curious for the more legal minded HNers — To what extent can a court order non-parties to do stuff? How do such things get challenged if someone doesn’t want to comply?
Also, does this differ in other countries like the UK?
Similarly, how does this interact with California's net-neutrality? This is a civil suit, so traffic to and from the plaintiffs may still be "lawful".
The registrar and TLD for the plaintiff's domain are not in the U.S. so good luck on those injunctions, although they'll probably have to get off of cloudflare.
3 comments
[ 2028 ms ] story [ 2046 ms ] threadIs what is surprising about this ban that it included 3 sites in one go or is it that it's more broad in the ways they are banned (or both)?
Also, does this differ in other countries like the UK?
The registrar and TLD for the plaintiff's domain are not in the U.S. so good luck on those injunctions, although they'll probably have to get off of cloudflare.
https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/one-for-all-are-nationw... is a fascinating analysis of non-party injunctions themselves.