[HN Gopher] US seizes Iranian PressTV websites
___________________________________________________________________
US seizes Iranian PressTV websites
Author : inversetelecine
Score : 32 points
Date : 2021-06-22 17:59 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.rt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.rt.com)
| guilhas wrote:
| The real threat to the world, still better than bombing or
| invading without motive
|
| 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
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > 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.
| mike_d wrote:
| This is another reminder that .com is a US TLD.
|
| 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.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| How does this square with the first amendment? Is there a foreign
| country exception?
|
| 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.
| voltaireodactyl wrote:
| There is a foreign country exception in that the US
| Constitution, and its accompanying amendments, only apply to
| the US.
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| Placing sanctions on Iran is good for the planet, since it
| reduces oil production (Iran's oil exports are down 70% since
| 2017).
|
| Keeping the price of oil high will encourage the transition to
| EVs.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > How does this square with the first amendment?
|
| 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.
| aww_dang wrote:
| 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.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Consider the possibility of retaliation against western
| outlets by China
|
| Are Western outlets generally allowed Chinese domains without
| active involvement of and censorship by the Chinese government?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-22 23:02 UTC)