> Close, but not quite. Rather, Kazakhstan, being sovereign, can make whatever rules it wants and is limited in applying them only by practical constraints, mos

> Close, but not quite. Rather, Kazakhstan, being sovereign, can make whatever rules it wants and is limited in applying them only by practical constraints, mostly those applied by other sovereigns. And absent any practical way for them to enforce their rules, no one has any good reason to respect them. Nor does their claim to "sovereignty" give them any kind of moral imperative over the actions of people who do not reside in that country on any philosophical theory of law that I am aware of. So without a practical reason (the threat of force) or a moral imperative (patently non-existent), why should Mozilla comply with their wishes? If the smallest sovereign state in the world passed a law that said that marriages in the United States were invalid if they were between two people of the same gender, would anyone care? Should they?