Here's the text of what I think is the actual Dynadot injunction in the Wikileaks case.
It orders Dynadot to disable the DNS for wikileaks and to preserve certain records. It doesn't say anything about the order applying to the rest of us.
I found it via this somewhat involved URL which I got off Google.
As regards Wikileaks, at least:
*Not applicable in China
I just took a quick glance, but I think this is a judicial “order” in name only. It looks like a typical settlement agreement, probably offered by DynaDot, who likely went to the Plaintiff and said “if we take down the DNS records can you leave us out of this?” DynaDot likely had a strong case, if not rock solid, but that doesn’t prevent them from bargaining their way out of the suit however they see fit. Settlement agreements like this are only called judicial “orders” because the judge is ordering the clerk to take DynaDot out of the suit, and approving the agreement of the parties is not unconscionable.
I’m not a lawyer (yet), but the jargon might be making this look like something it’s not.
Frankly I hope the internet community punishes dynadot in no uncertain terms. This spineless action is the result of censorship pure and simple. Dynadot is complicit in that censorship an should be boycotted.
Dynadot is a hard working Standford graduate and his assistants in Silicon Valley.
Whereas “Thomas B.” is full of shlt, especially signing “I am not a lawyer (yet)”. The guy who echos his mindless rant by calling for an Internet boycot but signing his post “me” is the real spineless assh0le. Only bad things will happen to these two people so long as they walk the Earth thinking and acting this way.