Slashdot Mirror
Cyberspace a Separate Place?
Sierran writes: "According to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals (and reported by The New York Times) cyberspace (and a person's or corporation's activities therein) exist in 'a place' distinct from their physical location. This has some interesting legal ramifications; does this mean we'll see Internet 'virtual estate' zoning as in Stephenson's Snow Crash?" Most courts have held the opposite - that internet activities are firmly rooted in the real world, located wherever the computers and people are.
Not sure what I think of this... It's of course too soon to tell what the ramifications of this case are.
So where then?
And do I have to declare where for tax purposes?
(Try telling that to the IRS!)
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
So does this mean I can argue that while my *ster servers exist in the U.S., it actually exists in a virtual Sealand?
I can see this is going to cause a lot of confusion (and we're gonna see this exploited a bunch)...I'd love to see what people like the RIAA could do with this.
"I'm not a vegetarian because I love animals. I'm a vegetarian because I hate plants." -- A. Whitney Brown
Does this mean that patents held in real life don't apply in cyberspace? What about domains? Intellectual property? What laws are there in cyberspace? Can I copy mp3s online as long as I don't burn them to CD and listen to it off of that?
Everything I know in life I learnt from
I thought the Napster case, if not setting precedence, gave insight into the idea that your jurisdiction is where the servers are. After all, if not for the servers, then the infringement could not take place.
In this case, the house is in Tampa, not only serving up webcam feeds, but where "the action" is taking place. It almost seems trivial that the images are distributed over the internet, since the place of manufacture is clearly in Tampa.
I like fire ants. They are very spicy!
Where is this comment?
Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted
So? That doesn't prevent a passing of a bill that will make copyright infringement in cyberspace still illegal.
The US Supreme Court has already ruled that a state cannot charge sales tax on goods ordered from another state; this is a direct violation of the commerce clause of the constitution. Now, suppose that the internet is declared to be present in all states simultaneously. This would now open the door to states charging sales tax on internet purchases, regardless of the nexus of the merchant.
This certainly would seem to open the door for online gambling to move forward. If it isn't in a state, there can be no state ban on it. Also, a person sitting in his own home gambling online has been purportedly illegal; but since online is in another place, this doesn't seem like an issue.
Only thing is, if Cyberspace is a different place, do we need a CyberCongress to make laws pertaining to it? And Cybercops to enforce them? And (god help us) Cybertaxes to pay for a Cyberbureaucracy?
Time to Declare Independance.
Death to the Lameness Filter!
There seem to be two ways of establishing legal traditions. One is to plan things out ahead of time, being aware of the mistakes of the past, and the other is to muddle one's way through, sort of making it up as you go along. Our system, based on English common law (but much changed from it), is definitely in category two.
Do you trust our modern-day lawyers and judges to decide something so important as jurisdictional boundaries on the Internet in the anonymity of thousands of courtrooms? And, furthermore, isn't this Congress' job? Last I checked, the Constitution explicitly gives Congress the right to choose which courts hear which items (with the caveat that whenever courts hear something, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction). I'm not that eager to put something like this in the hands of the people who gave us the DMCA, but I prefer a public debate to the mess we're going to get if we let lawyers slug this out behind closed doors using arcane rules that have frequently produced nigh-incomprehensible results.
Treating the Internet as a separate country actually makes a lot of sense. It could greatly simplify legal issues.
In an ideal world an international body would be set up so that any taxes gathered in this new country would go to humanitarian causes, helping third world countries develop, preventing diseases, promoting global stability and democracy, etc. Unfortunately the countries of the world are willing to unite and work together to fight and make war, but not to make the world a better place.
If they acknowledge that cyberspace is another place, they would need a new court to rule in it. Better yet, it can have a president, a constitution, a congress, etc.
Hmmm. Not good.
When I am online its is a special magical place completely different from my living room. I loose all contact with the physical world. I know this because I can't hear the telephone ring.
Slashdot is an anagram for Has Dolts, and I am Dolt number 468543
"cyberspace (and a person's or corporation's activities therein) exist in 'a place' distinct from their physical location"
Think about it, I sit here at my compute, but what I do/say is out on servers everywhere. Do I know where, no. And can we consider the info being passed around to be something you can hold onto. No, its in a electronic form. Once something is on the net, its everywhere. What physical object can be everywhere at one. None.
The net is its own universe onto its on. You can't really apply one countries law onto it since it extends to all places in this world. cyberspace has physical entry points in this world (pc's, servers) but after that, its just out there
my 2 cents plus 2 more
...the real world and the wired is not so clear.
:)
// Agent Green (Ian / IU7 / KB1JQO)
// IEEE 802.3: All 10base Are Belong To Us
But you wouldn't get that from the summary, would you?
The court is interpreting the zoning laws properly:
Yet "those concerns are not implicated in this case," Weinberg said. Voyeur Dorm's business does not encourage "guys with bloodshot eyes to tromp around the suburbs of Tampa, looking for naked ladies," he said.
This is clearly a case of prudish interests trying to use a zoning law against its originl spirit, and not getting away with it. That's good. But it's not a major change in cyberspace law.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
eg Can an authority now order the displacement/zoning away adult material online because its proximity to my bussiness (eg A very similar or misspelt domain name, or perhaps on the same server) causes my bussiness to be devalued/dissrespected?
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
I am tiered of having to register for sites like NYT when they are free. it is just a pain. Slashdot should have an account on some of the sites that can be used when links to the sites are posted. so i made one login is NYTslashdot the pass is slashdot... have fun all you who hate registering just like i do...
The Internet is a series or privately and publicly owned networks connected together. The routers, switches and servers are owned by corporations. These corporations are based in political boundaries we call countries and must follow the local laws and regulations as well as those of countries in which they operate.
What makes anyone think cyberspace is a different world? With this argument one can say they can set up an online heroin business that should be immune to any legal ramifications.
This is not really about the location. If the company running the Voyeur Dorm was showing the live video feeds on a TV in its offices in (say) Miami, then that would be subject to Miami's zoning laws, not Tampa's (where the house is). Presumably a city could come up with a zoning law that restricted the areas in which adult web-hosting businesses could operate.
This ruling would strike down such zoning laws. The judge ruled that because there are no secondary effects of operating the business (late night visitors, disturbances, unsavory characters roaming the streets) then the city does not have the right to restrict constitutionally protected behavior.
And quite right, too.
--
E_NOSIG
Most comments posted so far are looking at this from the point of view of people creating different laws for Cyberspace. This isn't really in the spirit of the ruling. The point is that Voyeur Dorm wasn't selling sexually explicit material in a particular area where it was banned. This doesn't mean that I, in the UK, can import pr0n on the net, and say it is OK because it is in cyberspace. The point is that cyberspace sales don't affect the people in the area directly by changing the atmosphere of the area (the law that was being challenged was to do with keeping sales of a sexually explicit nature away from residential areas, because it changes the mood of the area for the worse). You can't just use this ruling to say "DECSS doesn't break the law, because the law doesn't apply to cyberspace", the law does (in all the places I know of at any rate).
-- Dooferlad
Now, what about online prostitution?
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
This is what happens when we tread into new territory. Different courts make opposing decisions, some for the good, some for the bad. Government pass laws, some good, some bad. Eventually the dust will settle, and hopefully someone will straighten out the mess that has already been created.
-Shade
i don't go anywhere when i place a telephone call. correspondence via snail mail has no impact on my physical location. and i sure as fuck don't go to new 'places' when i 'surf' or send email - my fat ass is still right there in the chair. which part of this did the honorable judge spacely not understand?
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
this is a totally illogical ruling. the internet is not some ether that just floats around and doesn't exist in any physical location. the judge should have realized that these porn transactions happened at the location of the server.
the article doesn't even say where the servers are. they may be in nebraska or they may be inside the house where the cameras are.
whatever local statutes there are against adult entertainment transactions should apply to electronic ones too.
this is no different than if they were offering a 1-900 phone service. the transactions don't happen in "another place out there".
If it is a seperate place, does a terestrial government have authority over it? A law passed in the US has no force in Great Britain. Is this the beginning of a "virtual country" with a virtual government and laws? This would be established by netizens for the same reasons real-world governments exist--security, infrasturcture, and (for some people) power over others.
science is a religion
The last time the government tried to pull this with wiretapping even Louis Brandeis couldn't save us and the precident stood until 1967! Here's a good link about Olmstead vs. the United States.
in making cyberspace fall under the jurisdiction of federal law alone. It kind of makes sense in a way, if the "location" spans states and the state governments themselves can't agree who should be enforcing what laws, perhaps it's up to the federal government. Of course, then you get into international issues, like off-shore gambling, participating in illegal activities via the 'net overseas. Will the 'net then fall under U.N. jurisdiction? What about countries not in the U.N.?
:)
Back to the subject at hand: I would think states would want it both ways here. Make it so that they can legitimately tax sales online (ignoring current interstate sales laws), without having to go to the trouble of enforcing criminal laws of the Internet themselves.
Feh...I could be wrong.
My sigs always suck.
Finally some legal sense and recognition of what we have all always known. Hopefully the will be the beginning of more legal precedents getting set. CyberSpace is different, and should be considered differernt from a physical location. Almost to the point that its considered a different state/province/or even country all together. To this end even the laws governing CyberSpace should be made by those involved in and using cyberspace, and not by those for the most part "disconnected".
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
I can't believe this case even went to court. Anyone could videotape a porn movie in a private house in that municipality and later sell it in a store. But it's not ok to transmit the video over the internet?
The government really needs to stay out of people's homes.
Developers: We can use your help.
I can't imagine what we'll be seeing tomorrow...
CmdrTaco Arrested with Pants Around Ankles, Stalking Frightened Co-Eds
You heard it here first...
Does that mean we can make a declaration of independence?
Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
Given that most people seem to visit web properties run by 4 major corporations, the attempts by government to restrict information access and prevent anonymous transactions, mass marketing of products and services with no relevence to me, and attempts to make money off open standards via W3C's RAND proposal, it sure seems like the same as the physical world.
What's the point of me moderating if nobody reads *my* posts?
Basicly it's a ruling stating that this company isn't causing problems in its neighbourhood, and therefore doesn't violate zoning regulations. If they were producing something that's illegal in the state in general (say if making such video recordings at all were illegal), it'd be different, then the laws will apply as normal. It's simply a case of a company not violating the *intentions* of zoning regulations, and therefore got off the hook. And I'd say it's a good thing, that sometimes the legal system looks at laws and make sure they are enforced as intended, not only by the letter.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Show me a cyberspace jail and I'll start taking this seriously. We cannot proclaim cyberspace to be a 'place' without throwing out all hope of redress when someone commits a crime there.
The only arguement against this is that it is nigh on impossible to kill someone online, or even do them physical harm (anyone challenge this??) and as such the worst crimes cannot be commited entirely online, and so will come under a physical locations jurisdiction.
Crime against property, stealing the contents of someones bank account, wiping their hard drive, any act committed online are relatively minor and so it doesn't matter that we can't 'get justice'. This is the brave new world we just chose to live with that.
As I said - that would be the only arguement I could think of to support the 'other place' concept - and personally I think its so full of holes to be a joke.
Tampa officials sought to close down the house because it allegedly violated the city's zoning rule, Section 27-523, which largely prohibits in residential areas "any premises . . . on which is offered to members of the public . . . for consideration, entertainment featuring . . . specified sexual activities."
Guess that means in Tampa you're not allowed to bring home a date.
Developers: We can use your help.
"Nothing takes place in the house, everything takes place in a virtual place,"
Which sort of goes beyond logic. Nothing is going on there? Hardly.
It is sort of like if they were selling video tapes. If they were selling video tapes, they would be subject to postal laws, etc.
There is the actual activity that happens in the house. and then there is the commercial activity that takes palce their.
Of course, by giving out the street address, they are sure to encourage flocks of cars to try to drive on by, people harrassing the girls, and making life uncomfortable in general. In other words, trying to shame them into leaving.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I don't agree with the ruling. It sounds to me like another uneducated, or miseducated judge has ruled on something they don't understand.
This is what I mean: saying the internet is a seperate "place" out there is like saying that a phone line is a "place" also. When business is done over the phone, it's between two parties who are firmly based somewhere in the real world. My point is that the internet is just a communications medium and not a location. If you want to frame business transaction laws do so in regards to where the company is registered, not where it's servers exist.
Another way of thinking about things is a 3 piece model, for example: When you call 1-800-ABCDEFG, you might be talking to a telemarketer based out of a strictly telemarketing company somewhere like Charleston, SC, but Hooked on Phonics as a company resides elsewhere (I don't know where, but let's say Portland, Oregon.) So the actual transaction taking place is between you and the company in Portland, and as a secondary transaction the company in Portland pays the company in Charleston for it's telemarketing service. This is basically the same setup as the internet. You have a company, a web hosting company, and a customer. If they establish the internet as a "place" then this web hosting company will be responsible for taxes on all of its transactions, as well as other legal ramifications. I personally don't beleive that this is the right way to go about things, we need to have laws based on entity to entity transactions rather than the actual path taken.
~ now you know
I claim this ethernet in the name of America!
There are upmteen rulings, such as with Napster, that deem cyberspace locations to be under the jurisdiction of the computers providing service at those 'locations', and/or the companies or individuals whose conduct at these 'locations' is under question.
But this ruling appears to contradict all those previous verdicts. Strangly, the ruling is silent on the question of 'who' or 'what' has jurisdiction in cyberspace.
If championed by a powerful and determined lawyer, this could be the basis for a massive legal challenge to the DMCA, and its subsequent watering down into oblivion.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Yer blowin smoke up my ass now, but its OK because when I rip off the life savings of your 85 year old grandmother by selling her phony gold stock, I'm gonna tell the judge that it was not a crime because the deal was in 'phone space' and the laws of the land do not apply. He'll say, "Well yeah, but you was in Wicheta and she was in Miami and a thin little copper wire connected both of youse". I'll say, "Yeah, just like the internet!
Case closed, cyberspace is in your mind and your mind is up shit creek.
The "cyberspace is a whole other world" interpretation is just being slapped on this narrow decision. It won't hold up as a precedent in a case with broader implications.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
127.0.0.1 Everybody with net access can get here. Sometimes you can find good p0rn in your cyber jail also. ;-)~
Would it be too far a stretch to see the law interpreting the findings to mean "The internet isn't a real space, so noone should expect any rights in that place." ?
Almost seems the government is gearing up for something akin to the "War on Drugs" but in a computer context.
but the way the media interpreted this case that has me worried. Already mindless script kiddies are going around saying that the "cyber world" is a magical place that exists distinct from the real world, and that anything that happens in it is beyond legality, morality, ethics or both. This has always been a common argument ever since the internet became a big deal to the media and they've used words like Cyberspace to describe it.
Now we have l33t kiddies who read some news, who will soon be telling their victims that they were vindicated by the courts, and their victims will feel even more powerless. Kiddies have never been concerned much with facts, just handy lies they can tell themselves and others.
"Look at me, I invented the stove!" -- Ben Franklin
Does this mean that the areas in online games (EverQuest, Ultima Online.) are now considered to be separate space? If so, do they count as part of the nation that they are hosted within, or are they separate nations? Does this mean that because Norrath (EverQuest) is a land unto itself within cyberspace, I can give lectures on cracking SDMI within Norrath and not fear prosecution by the US government?
From the article:
"The dwelling contains several college-age female residents and dozens of live Web cams that transmit unvarnished images 24 hours a day to tens of thousands of subscribers."
Given the nature of Voyeurdorm, one would imagine that the images are quite well "varnished" by the time they reach the customers. ; )
"Understand you're having a little Jimmy Page trouble."
If the contents stored on the server is under the laws of where the server are physical located.
Then if I understand it if a server/harddrive is located inside a satelite orbiting earth theres no law that governs the contents so you could store and serve everything from that server?
it is frustrating when, like myself for example, you are working a game that uses this concept - not many things out there doing that... and it takes a while to write when it is in your "spare time" - so when someone points it out like this, then there are others smacking their head like "oh yeah, I could do THIS" and then they can beat you to your idea.
bastards
There are some odd things afoot now, in the Villa Straylight.
I can only thank my lucky stars that "ignorant" judges like these ones are deciding legal precedents instead of people like you who don't bother to synthesize the facts.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
"Cyberspace" - kill me. I hate that word. It's so... so... stupid. I can't think of a word to sufficiently describe my distaste for that word. I don't even remember who came up with that word, but please, please, let them be appropriately beaten for it...
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
The funny thing is: jails already exists somehow:
When I wrote the Askemos system, which works from exactly the same assumption (namely an information space being independant of the physical space as already lined out by ESR over the past year in Homesteading the Noosphere) I had to model a democratic rights system. Suddenly I found myself coding a virtual jail!
The realy interesting consequence is something else: you can't copy information is such a space.
Maybe there are some people who don't like that judge anymore, but don't know that yet;-)
Voyeur Dorm's business does not encourage "guys with bloodshot eyes to tromp around the suburbs of Tampa, looking for naked ladies," he said.
Speak for yourself...
You're using her as bait, Master!
This ruling does make a difference! You know why: for copyright law.
If this holds up, than ESR was right in Homesteading the Noosphere, where he describes our world as an virtual information space independant of the physical space.
Following that idea consequently, I coded the Askemos system and had to conclude that it is impossible to copy information in that space.
Could someone find out the reference please!
Personally, I think the concept of "rights" as something that individuals hold in relation to governments (including their own) is just about over in the United States.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is reporting today the the U.S. Government is currently holding at least 300 people in connection with the 9/11 incident. These 300 are being held in secret, without being allowed to communicate with attorneys, without their attorneys being informed when court proceedings are being held, without family members being informed where the prisoners are being held or even that they _are_ being held, and with all records of the proceedings being kept under "seal" (a concept that I don't believe appears in the Constitution of the United States).
Any objections to that? You will probably be next.
sPh
"I couldn't have killed my wife officer check out my log files. I was in cyber space the whole time."
I think the deeper issue at hand is current laws do not address internet businesses and whole new models of commerce. Most of the laws reguarding zoning were created to address public works, transportation, realestate, development, property value and other physical issues. Those zoning laws were created to prevent a person from opening a store at home, since there wouldn't be sufficient parking or facilities to accomodate a large number of people. A lot of zoning laws are there for good reasons, but it doesn't stop people from using them incorrectly. Law suits like the one mentioned have been creeping up as neighborhoods become aware of what is happening. The definition of space/cyberspace is actually not relevant. No matter how much people love/hate the word. Laws surrounding commerce, and how businesses operate define what is permitted.
In the next few years, this case may become very important. If there are no visible external signs of business transaction at a location, it is hard for law enforcement to monitor/enforce. The only way a person would know a neighbor was operating an adult business from home is if they went to the website. Conservatives will always have a problem with the sale/purchase of adult services, but that doesn't give them the right to misinterpret a law and use it to their own gains. It is obvious the legal system and law enforcement doesn't know how to handle these new situations. As internet businesses continue to grow world wide, enforcing laws will becoming increasingly difficult. With great freedom comes great burden. This case has a lot more at stake than just adult entertainment. At it's core, it about culture and commerce.
Well, I guess my comment was based on the article posted here since I don't have access to NY Times. I have heard other cases though aiming mostly at taxing the internet, those are what I was talking about. I assumed this was the same type of thing based on the /. post. my bad.
~ now you know
why are you wasting space replying to the obtuse turd that didn't get it?
dude, separation doesn't mean that you're not allowed to think, believe, express, share, talk about, maybe even preach a bit, but it merely states that MONEY (financing, handouts, profits, loans, etc..) can't be determined with religion as a factor. When you graduate high school you may finally grok this valuable lesson.
just nslookup & whois. Mailing address & ph # are usually provided. oh yeah, DUH.
I see the internet as a seperate place. I think that the "5 miles out to sea" rule should apply to the internet as well - no laws. Then again, I'm an idealistic college hippie
The case is narrowly decided on the constitutional justification for zoning laws: protection of the immediate physical neighborhood. This case should have no impact on the well established U.S. case law dealing with case JURISDICTION that has located actions via the internet as occuring at the provider or servers's physical location. Its an interesting decision, but for zoning purposes only.
This is not going to stand. The powers of the federal government are to regulate interstate commerce. If this judge declares cyberspace to "some other place," how can any interstate law be upheld?
Second, if this other place exists, I declare all taxes to be non-existent as I am going have a bloody coup and become dictator of the realm.
The question answered by the ruling does not directly address digital content as such. It simply highlights a weakness in local zoning law.
The position that no offer of adult entertainment for public consumption at the dorm where video is being shot, suggests that anyone may situate video production facilities for pornographic movies within this area without penalty.
The next logical question is: Are the videos transfered to digital media for distribution at that loction (aparently not) or another location and would that other location (for the purposes of zoning) be considered to be offering entertainment of an adult nature - becaue it's vary likely the location of the hosting facility is zoned for light industry. Perhaps, alternatively the court is suggesting that the service is being offered at the point of consumption, since it is cinsidering 'cyberspace' to be a distinct location. It's disappointing that this clarification wasn't made in the ruling.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
I mean, we always have to remember that these servers, at the moment, are run by real people, from real physical locations, in real jurisdictions, where the law applies to them.
One should not be able to avoid local law by simply going 'online'.
It is important, however, when it comes to more purely informational crimes.. for the courts and lawmakers to realize that if they make running a certain type of site illegal online from their country, it will not preven those who want such information from obtaining it; the site will just run from somewhere else where it IS legal, and the exact same audience will be there to see it (Audience being the whole internet).
the laws are not worried about
Any zoning law I've ever seen allows for business to take place from the home, as long as said business operates within certain bounds... like, you can't have a showroom open to the public all day.. but you can certainly invite a potential customer over to talk business.
Many accountants operate out of their home.. perfectly legally.
Many home-based businesses are out there. What about contract programmers working from home? That's operating a business from your home.. are you saying that is illegal?
Now that the address (the real physical one) has been published, (2312 West Farwell Drive, Tampa Florida) what's the likelyhood that the mentioned "unsavory" types might come around looking for a free live show? Might this not just be the result that the municipal officials were hoping for? Unsavory types show up, the case is re-opened in court, the house is forced to move...
;o)
What the hell do I know?
Does this include phone calls? I mean, 'where' exactly AM I meeting with someone when I am on the phone with them?
Is placing an order online REALLY that much different than placing an order from the Sears catalog?
If my computer is able to use the phone line to enter this 'virtual place' protected by law, can I?
This could have HUGE implications for wire-tap laws... both good AND bad.
Bad example: a court could issue a 'wiretap' for 'any' location in Cyberspace... the tap could then follow from state to state to country... but then the question would be, what court has this jurisdiction? I'm not sure I want any court thinking it has that kind of global power.
-db
11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Docket # No. 00-16346
Voyeur Dorm v City of Tampa
It's interesting to note that they ruled in favor of Voyeur Dorm because the company does not specifically service Tampa. The test cases involved companies that operated for the city and this one operates globally.
I have no friends. Will you be my friend?
I for one am grateful that "one of the faithful" was the first to coin a catchy phrase describing (essentially) the Internet. Imagine where we'd be today if some shadowy-faced Washington czar had gotten to the public first -- we'd have the mainstream press and Joe Sixpack all thinking of the 'Net as "Debbie Does Digital", or worse.
A few years back, a computer magazine solicited its readers to help it settle on a single term to describe the Internet. Their favorites included such albatrosses as "NII (National Information Infrastructure)", "I-way" and "Info-bahn" -- thank goodness the masses spoke and forced them to choose "the Net"!
... I'd have moved to a new house long since.
Faith based initiatives get Gov't money - mine and yours. If your religious and want to donate to your faith, feel free. Don't steal my money at gunpoint (which is what happens if you don't pay your taxes long enough).
How many mosques will be funded? How many extremist mosques? Scientologists? Telephone psychic scams that claim to be preaching their "faith" now?
I know my Skeptical Scientist faith sure as hell isn't going to get a check as a faith based intiative.
Your god is not the answer to my problems.
They are specifically tied to a physical location and specific items. So do the cops need a warrant to search my house and ALSO one to search my "cyber-space" even though the machine holding said cyber space sits in the same location ? I more confused than ever...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
The Eleventh Circuit did not hold that the cyberspace conduct wasn't *in* Tampa, they merely held that a particular Tampa zoning ordinance prohibiting offering of adult entertainment to members of the public presumes that the customers physically attend the premises so zoned and wherein the entertainment is performed.
It isn't a very deep or fundamental observation about technology to suggest that a person at the other end of a communications line from a source location isn't physically located at the source. Saying that it is "in virtual space," wasn't really more meaningful than that, except in the case where the other guy is also in Tampa, albeit at a different place.
Because the statute itself didn't expressly address regulation of sources of publication, the Court didn't address the First Amendment issues.
The American Family Association has significant representation on the City Counsel through one Bob Buckhorn, which is what gave rise to this matter. Representatives for the defendants, an able First Amendment attorney, raised the First Amendment issues, but the Court didn't reach them because the zoning ordinance itself was held to require that the entertainment not merely originate in, but also be received in, the alleged adult entertainment facility (hence the social impact).
Ultimately AFA Bob will probably rework the ordinance, the case will once again be tried and the defendants lose below, and the Eleventh Circuit will once again have the issue, but will ultimately have to face the (very interesting) First Amendment questions.
According to the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of appeals (and reported by The New York Times) cyberspace (and a person's or corporation's activities therein) exist in 'a place' distinct from their physical location.
Just what we need. Not only will we continue to pay property taxes where our businesses are physically located, now we will pay property taxes on the few square feet of real estate our co-located servers reside on.
icksnay on hacking my boxsnay.
I have been watching you for too long, god damn it!
The quote you are looking for is at the end of the following.
"I'm just not happy, I'm just not happy... I'm just not happy, because my life didn't turn out the way I thought it would." Hey, join the fucking club, OK? When I was growing up, I thought I'd be the starting center fielder for the Boston Red Sox. Life sucks, get a fucking helmet.
Please correct this immediately.
... legal under the spirit of zoning statutes ...
Well-phrased. What the hell ever happened to upholding the spirit of the law? If lawyers and judges kept the intent of the law in mind, we wouldn't have all these boneheaded legislations popping up all the time.