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.

Comments

This is a *zoning* law issue

[bill_mcgonigle]

But you wouldn't get that from the summary, would you?

The court is interpreting the zoning laws properly:

...the Supreme Court has held that a city has authority to zone or displace an adult business, because it has an important interest in preventing so-called "secondary effects" on adjacent properties -- such as a decline in property values or an increase in crime.

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.

Nothing to see here, move along...

[Kjella]

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.