4 ms·

It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. > Kick Online, which openly describes itself as a “moral free” company, ignored the lawsuit and refused to c

It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. > Kick Online, which openly describes itself as a “moral free” company, ignored the lawsuit and refused to comply with the court’s order. It continued publishing and distributing harmful sexual material that was accessible to minors in Texas. This is the same website with a forum with millions of users trading information on how to assault their partner. https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-assault-online-vis-intl/index.html https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2026/03/world/expose-rape-as... FAFO.

pixl97 4mo ago
All fun and games till religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like.
- BobbyTables2 4mo ago
  Indeed. Does this mean Texas can shutdown other websites in other states that provide abortion support? I’m sure there are those who would argue such to be harmful to children…(not to mention the fetus)
  - monksy 4mo ago
    Yes. With what they just did.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    Yes, it means exactly that.
  - walrus01 4mo ago
    They're already actively trying to prosecute people who mail medication across state lines.
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago
  All speech does not deserve the same protection, certainly not unlimited protection, says SCOTUS. Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce law requiring age verification and parental consent on apps - https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-enforce-law-requiring-age-verification-and-parental-consent-on-app/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/supreme-court-allows-texa... - July 6th, 2026 Supreme Court allows Texas’ law on age-verification for pornography sites - https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on... - June 27th, 2025 https://mashable.com/article/all-the-states-and-countries-with-age-verification-laws https://mashable.com/article/all-the-states-and-countries-wi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_...
  - pixl97 4mo ago
    Right, that's why speech by white Christians males should be protected, and not any of those Muslims or gay people. Now, I say this mockingly, my neighbors (yes I live in Texas) say such things with a steadfast belief. Which is really weird to me because they keep electing adulterers and rapists.
    - fwip 4mo ago
      I don't see the disconnect you do - they are voting for white Christian men to protect white Christian men. The rape and adultery was hurting women (or gay guys).
- throwawaypath 4mo ago
  >religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like. Leftists and trans activists attempting to shut down Kiwifarms comes to mind.
EmbarrassedHelp 4mo ago
The problem is that Paxton is attempting to do the same thing to every site that doesn't forcibly violate user privacy with mandatory age verification. Its part of Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundations goals, and its incompatible with privacy rights.
Dylan16807 4mo ago
> It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. Then it's violating the laws of a whole lot of places by serving pornography to adults. The existence of a web server doesn't feel like enough nexus to seize a domain.
what 4mo ago
> it operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users Nonsense. There is no reliable way to not serve your content to people in Texas. If anything, Texas should compel ISPs to not serve it to their Texas customers.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  That's the point. Texas will argue that every website operates in Texas so they get to take down every website.
monksy 4mo ago
Today I learned that a foreign government operates in Texas. I didn't know that Texas is supporting and promoting the North Korean government: http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/first http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/first I wonder why they aren't being called out for anti-American terrorist groups.
- toomuchtodo 4mo ago
  Not a .com domain, so out of reach. Anything within US reach, individuals or entities, is fair game from a US judicial system perspective. Everyone learns this the hard way, it seems.
  - profmonocle 4mo ago
    A federal court, sure. But this was a state court ruling on a state law.
    - toomuchtodo 4mo ago
      My other comment in this thread has citations demonstrating SCOTUS support and approval for Texas to enforce these laws, as well as links to statue trackers showing where states and countries have implemented these age validation requirements for social media and adult content sites. It was a choice by Motherless and their holding company, Kick Online, to egregiously ignore Texas law; the law has been found sound by the US Supreme Court, and enforceable by Texas. These are the facts of the situation. Everything else to discuss on this is feelings and opinion, unless there are relevant facts not yet shared or discovered. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48953591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48953591
      - Dylan16807 4mo ago
        Importantly "egregious" is also opinion. The other point of view is that they "very reasonably" ignored Texas law because they're not in Texas. The Supreme Court found that the law was valid, but that ruling doesn't mean it necessarily applies in a situation like this.
profmonocle 4mo ago
> It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. What do you mean "serves"? Does that just mean not actively blocking users from Texas? Allowing your web site to be accessible regardless of user location is, and always has been, the default way to run a web site. Your assertion would mean that web site operators are beholden to the laws of all jurisdictions on the planet if they don't actively block those users. Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there? Also, keep in mind that geolocation isn't actually part of the Internet - it's an overlay that private companies have cobbled together that usually works. But it's not perfect, especially at the subnational level. Many times I've connected to public Wi-Fi and I get an alert that I've signed into something from across the country, because that's where the Wi-Fi provider's IPs are located. Are you sure that every jurisdiction in the world will accept that if gelocation gets it wrong, you're off the hook? Utah has already claimed that companies are responsible for complying with their laws even if the user masks their location with VPN. https://www.privacyguides.org/news/2026/05/11/utah-targets-vpns-for-age-verification/ https://www.privacyguides.org/news/2026/05/11/utah-targets-v...
- 15155 4mo ago
  > Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there? Simple: a local court having jurisdiction over those individuals would utilize their own laws and discretion to decide if they are required to extradite these people. If a country chooses not to comply, political consequences may ensue - this is basic international diplomacy. Russia doesn't seem to care about demands to extradite Snowden: they don't have to, they have the resources and political will to ignore these demands. Someday, perhaps to curry favor, they might comply. Smaller, weaker countries don't have the luxury of noncompliance, nor do they have the same ability to have their various legal proceedings enforced extraterritorially. Might makes right.
  - walrus01 4mo ago

pixl97 4mo ago

All fun and games till religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like.

BobbyTables2 4mo ago
Indeed. Does this mean Texas can shutdown other websites in other states that provide abortion support? I’m sure there are those who would argue such to be harmful to children…(not to mention the fetus)
- monksy 4mo ago
  Yes. With what they just did.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  Yes, it means exactly that.
- walrus01 4mo ago
  They're already actively trying to prosecute people who mail medication across state lines.
toomuchtodo 4mo ago
All speech does not deserve the same protection, certainly not unlimited protection, says SCOTUS. Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce law requiring age verification and parental consent on apps - https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/supreme-court-allows-texas-to-enforce-law-requiring-age-verification-and-parental-consent-on-app/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/07/supreme-court-allows-texa... - July 6th, 2026 Supreme Court allows Texas’ law on age-verification for pornography sites - https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on-age-verification-for-pornography-sites/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/06/court-allows-texas-law-on... - June 27th, 2025 https://mashable.com/article/all-the-states-and-countries-with-age-verification-laws https://mashable.com/article/all-the-states-and-countries-wi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_laws_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_age_verification_...
- pixl97 4mo ago
  Right, that's why speech by white Christians males should be protected, and not any of those Muslims or gay people. Now, I say this mockingly, my neighbors (yes I live in Texas) say such things with a steadfast belief. Which is really weird to me because they keep electing adulterers and rapists.
  - fwip 4mo ago
    I don't see the disconnect you do - they are voting for white Christian men to protect white Christian men. The rape and adultery was hurting women (or gay guys).
throwawaypath 4mo ago
>religions get in battles and shut down websites talking about gods and beliefs they don't like. Leftists and trans activists attempting to shut down Kiwifarms comes to mind.

EmbarrassedHelp 4mo ago

The problem is that Paxton is attempting to do the same thing to every site that doesn't forcibly violate user privacy with mandatory age verification. Its part of Project 2025 and the Heritage Foundations goals, and its incompatible with privacy rights.

Dylan16807 4mo ago

> It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. Then it's violating the laws of a whole lot of places by serving pornography to adults. The existence of a web server doesn't feel like enough nexus to seize a domain.

what 4mo ago

> it operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users Nonsense. There is no reliable way to not serve your content to people in Texas. If anything, Texas should compel ISPs to not serve it to their Texas customers.

inigyou 4mo ago
That's the point. Texas will argue that every website operates in Texas so they get to take down every website.

monksy 4mo ago

Today I learned that a foreign government operates in Texas. I didn't know that Texas is supporting and promoting the North Korean government: http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/first http://naenara.com.kp/main/index/en/first I wonder why they aren't being called out for anti-American terrorist groups.

toomuchtodo 4mo ago
Not a .com domain, so out of reach. Anything within US reach, individuals or entities, is fair game from a US judicial system perspective. Everyone learns this the hard way, it seems.
- profmonocle 4mo ago
  A federal court, sure. But this was a state court ruling on a state law.
  - toomuchtodo 4mo ago
    My other comment in this thread has citations demonstrating SCOTUS support and approval for Texas to enforce these laws, as well as links to statue trackers showing where states and countries have implemented these age validation requirements for social media and adult content sites. It was a choice by Motherless and their holding company, Kick Online, to egregiously ignore Texas law; the law has been found sound by the US Supreme Court, and enforceable by Texas. These are the facts of the situation. Everything else to discuss on this is feelings and opinion, unless there are relevant facts not yet shared or discovered. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48953591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48953591
    - Dylan16807 4mo ago
      Importantly "egregious" is also opinion. The other point of view is that they "very reasonably" ignored Texas law because they're not in Texas. The Supreme Court found that the law was valid, but that ruling doesn't mean it necessarily applies in a situation like this.

profmonocle 4mo ago

> It operates in Texas if it is serving Texas users. What do you mean "serves"? Does that just mean not actively blocking users from Texas? Allowing your web site to be accessible regardless of user location is, and always has been, the default way to run a web site. Your assertion would mean that web site operators are beholden to the laws of all jurisdictions on the planet if they don't actively block those users. Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there? Also, keep in mind that geolocation isn't actually part of the Internet - it's an overlay that private companies have cobbled together that usually works. But it's not perfect, especially at the subnational level. Many times I've connected to public Wi-Fi and I get an alert that I've signed into something from across the country, because that's where the Wi-Fi provider's IPs are located. Are you sure that every jurisdiction in the world will accept that if gelocation gets it wrong, you're off the hook? Utah has already claimed that companies are responsible for complying with their laws even if the user masks their location with VPN. https://www.privacyguides.org/news/2026/05/11/utah-targets-vpns-for-age-verification/ https://www.privacyguides.org/news/2026/05/11/utah-targets-v...

15155 4mo ago
> Think about what a bad precedent that would be. Some countries criminalize promotion of pro-LGBT+ content. What if those countries suddenly demand extradition of people who run pro-LGBT+ blogs because the web sites are available there? Simple: a local court having jurisdiction over those individuals would utilize their own laws and discretion to decide if they are required to extradite these people. If a country chooses not to comply, political consequences may ensue - this is basic international diplomacy. Russia doesn't seem to care about demands to extradite Snowden: they don't have to, they have the resources and political will to ignore these demands. Someday, perhaps to curry favor, they might comply. Smaller, weaker countries don't have the luxury of noncompliance, nor do they have the same ability to have their various legal proceedings enforced extraterritorially. Might makes right.
- walrus01 4mo ago