|
|
|
|
|
by mywittyname
1261 days ago
|
|
I feel like this will eventually become an "everybody poops"-type thing. Kind of like how it's expected that people will share nudes with their partner, thus if they've had multiple partners, former partners are expected to have some. Lots of people watch porn. I'm more concerned with the precedent that this sets. Given the "interstate" nature of online commerce, I would think that this law is not enforceable, but given the current makeup of SCOTUS, it might stand for the next 50-100 years. Once a ruling goes through allowing for this type of regulations, I would expect a patchwork of laws to effectively de-anonymize the entire internet. Since VPNs can be used to ignore these regulations, the next step is to write laws that regulate VPNs. Thus, the government will have a one-stop-shop for finding all of the "bad" things a person is doing. Since payments for like 99.9% of users will be easily traceable to an individual, this will turn VPNs into a honeypot of sorts. Sure, hardened criminals can find ways around this, but I don't think small-town police are too concerned with going after criminals that are out of their league, this is more about projecting power over the locals. |
|
What legal distinction do you draw to separate enforceability of this law from any other law regarding a business providing a service in a different jurisdiction than headquartered?
>I'm more concerned with the precedent that this sets.
International Shoe was decided decades before the internet was invented. I don't really see the novelty of this scenario when the website in question offers a paid subscription service to customers in Louisiana.