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

Re:Good and Bad

[plaisted]

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.

Think about it: Curtailment to free speech happens when a government threatens to do something (fine, jailtime, gestapo knocking at your door) if you say something they don't approve of. If the government does nothing like that, then anyone can say whatever they want.

Applied to the internet, you have to assume that anyone can get a web page, which is a reasonable assumption, I think.

But it would be irelevent

[maddogsparky]

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.

MMOGs as cybernations?

[supabeast!]

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?

Read the actual case

[nanojath]

If you read the actual case (there's a link in the NY Times article you'd find that this is really a reasonable interpretation. What's going on here is that some people want to shut down this house because they don't like the fact that someone is filming naked girls there, so they tried to use the letter of some zoning laws (specifying that a premise cannot make a public commerce offering of a sexual nature) to get the business thrown out. The business objected that the house is just a "filming/staging area" and that the actual commerce occurs remotely. The judge (rightly, I think) agreed: The spirit of the zoning law in question is about the public in the physical sense coming to do commerce at a specific local location. The judge is saying this zoning law cannot impact non-public activities, even if they are sexual in nature and carried out for the purpose of commerce. This is actually a precedent saying the internet IS like any other form of communication. Just because a transmission of data occurs in real time over telecommunications lines, the judge is saying it is no different than if they taped some naked girls and then mailed that tape to a customer. By the way those protesting the business were interpreting the law, that would be illegal too - as would making an adult film, or running an adult chat line from one's home, or writing a dirty story for Penthouse, for that matter.

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.

deeper issue

[f00zbll]

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.