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.
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!
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.
"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
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.
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
"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!"
You seem to have forgotten the way the US legal sytem works. There are three branches - the legislative (Congress) which passes the laws, the Executive (President, Cabinets) which enforces the laws, and the Judicial (courts) which decides the legality of the laws.
Very often the courts will wind up with an issue for which there is no clear cut law. Then it's up to the judge(s) to make a rational decision based not only on case law, but also on what makes sense in modern society and to themselves. Sometimes these rulings wind up with the legislature passing a new law to either reaffirm the ruling or to invalidate it (whether or not the new law is legal is another question).
That's all that's really happened here.
And as for the flames of "the Internet has no boundaries!" - yeah. That's nice. When you want to get back to the Real World, let us know because the Real World still has boundaries and so legal precedent of what laws apply to cyberspace make a huge difference. How would you like to get deported to China for breaking a law there on the Internet because the industrialized countries had agreed to respect each others legal systems when it came to viewers inside their country? Or get deported to the US because the NSA decided you were a threat?
As it happens, this ruling could make such a thing impossible, since Cyberspace is in a different legal jurisdiction... the question becomes, who's jurisdiction is it? And no, anarchy is not a viable solution. Go read some Niven if you think otherwise.
Free speach exists by default, so to speak. If there are no laws otherwise and no one enforcing censorship etc., then there is free speech.
The opposite is also true. If you have no laws PROTECTING speech, then there is no free speech.
Your speech would only be as free as the speed with which you can draw your sidearm.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.