But the question is, what would be a reasonable legal principle for preventing such laws generally? Mississippi is going to pass bullshit laws, but it shouldn’t be possible for the jurisdiction of any state to be anything on the entire internet.
In those cases it seems like the law does prevent state level regulation of those things, because the state is only allowed to regulate commerce happening within its borders, not what its residents do elsewhere (although they can still also regulate the use of fireworks and airguns, but enforcement is more difficult, for instance where I am they sometimes send out notices in the mail warning that it’s against the law for individuals to be setting off fireworks but there’s always a massive decentralized fireworks show every 4th of July anyway).
Somehow with the internet, the location of the server isn’t the thing that matters, it’s whose computer is accessing it and where that person and computer is located, and the liability is on the server not the user. IMO it should not work that way, because then every state with regressive politics has a stranglehold on the whole internet.
Psssshhhh!!! Get outta here with that solid logic, and critical thinking! We don’t use reasoning in this country! We just cry and scream until everybody ELSE caves to the demands!
Or - hear me out here - it shouldn’t be on anybody to do anything because the law itself is garbage and should not exist.
It should fall on the parents and ISPs should have an opt in option to block adult websites.
But we all know this is more about control and data harvesting than anything else.
yup but at least then they would be leading the charge for people to leave their state.
But the question is, what would be a reasonable legal principle for preventing such laws generally? Mississippi is going to pass bullshit laws, but it shouldn’t be possible for the jurisdiction of any state to be anything on the entire internet.
deleted by creator
In those cases it seems like the law does prevent state level regulation of those things, because the state is only allowed to regulate commerce happening within its borders, not what its residents do elsewhere (although they can still also regulate the use of fireworks and airguns, but enforcement is more difficult, for instance where I am they sometimes send out notices in the mail warning that it’s against the law for individuals to be setting off fireworks but there’s always a massive decentralized fireworks show every 4th of July anyway).
Somehow with the internet, the location of the server isn’t the thing that matters, it’s whose computer is accessing it and where that person and computer is located, and the liability is on the server not the user. IMO it should not work that way, because then every state with regressive politics has a stranglehold on the whole internet.
deleted by creator
Is that really how it works? Haven’t legal challenges to these sorts of laws already been appealed up to the supreme court and they were upheld?
Psssshhhh!!! Get outta here with that solid logic, and critical thinking! We don’t use reasoning in this country! We just cry and scream until everybody ELSE caves to the demands!