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

setting up an end run on the Constitution

[LorenzoV]

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.

Re:setting up an end run on the Constitution

[kenthorvath]

Yes, however because the company is located in another state it is them that you are ordering from, using the internet is just a means of communication, much like mail ordering, only high tech. If the internet exists in all states simultaneously, it also exists in all countries simultaneously, and so only international law should apply.

I donn't know about everyone else but ....

[vtechpilot]

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.

it is out there

[VEGETA_GT]

"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 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.

Not really another place

[Rupert]

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.

Don't look at it backwards

[Dooferlad]

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

What about gambling?

[Rand Race]

With this ruling, which makes perfect sense with regards to zoning laws (sorry P2P people, this doesn't cover you), it seems that online gambling should recieve the same protection. For adult businesses and gambling establishments the reasoning in controlling them via legislation is their 'secondary effects' on the immediate community. There is no other constitutional justification for controlling these industries and since online-only businesses do not have any significant detrimental effect on the surrounding communities they can not be contrilled via zoning restrictions. Any attempt to do so is most likely a violation of the seperation clause of the 1st amendment as the only reasoning behind controlling these industries is purely religous.

Now, what about online prostitution?

Re:What about gambling?

[graybeard]

There is no other constitutional justification for controlling these industries

I can think of a couple off the top of my head: the state has an interest in enforcing the contract between you and the casino, viz., that the game is fair. Also, states hate to have untaxed economic activity within their borders.

Any attempt to do so is most likely a violation of the seperation clause of the 1st amendment as the only reasoning behind controlling these industries is purely religous

By this reasoning, laws against murder are also contrary to the 1st amendment. (Thou shalt not...) The Constitution does not prohibit an ethics, even one based on a religion, from influencing the law. Indeed, Christianity *does* influence Western law, Islam *does* influence law in the Middle east, etc.

Now, what about online prostitution?

It's run by companies like Covad: you give them your money, you get fucked.

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.

Re:Location

[well_jung]

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.

That is true. However, this case was about wether the zoning laws should apply. What they (Virtual Dorm) were doing was NOT illegal, per se. It's firmly covered by the First Amendment.

At issue here was if the city could use it's zoning laws to kick them out of that neighborhood (probably to save the children). The court ruled they can't, since the zoning laws are meant to allow cities the ability to keep casinos, strip clubs, and car factories away from the neihborhoods where the people that actually vote live. The reasoning for this is to avoid negative imapacts on property value, crime, and genreal peacefulness. Since the Internet was the forum for the service that Virtual Dorm provides, nobody was physically going to the house to watch the girls. Since nobody was going to watch them @ the house, the house isn't really where the infringing behavior is going on, and none of the traditional issues with strip clubs wrt zoning were applicable.

It's quite different to run an Adult website than to run an "Adult" bookstore or a strip club. Not many bachelor parties hanging around outside your Co-Lo breaking beer bottles and pissing on flowers. ;)

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.

Thank You for not being an idiot

[nanojath]

Once again we see that the majority of people (including the people that come up with and approve the articles) are too busy sounding brilliant about the "implications" to read the articles and try to figure out what actually happened. The judiciary in this point made what I agree to be a valid estimation: That the activities that DID occur in the house (basically young ladies getting paid to walk around naked indoors) were legal under the spirit of zoning statutes (preventing visible business/activities likely to have a negative impact on the neighborhood) and that the "sexual commerce" aspect of the business occurred at locations remote to the actual house in question. In fact, this can be seen as affirming the notion that cyberspace activities occur at the "point of sale" so to speak - the judge's point is that the nasty men everyone objects to are jogging it in the privacy of their homes or offices, not in this uptight little Florida community that's so horrified that there are naked girls in a house in their pristine little suburb.

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.

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.

Say good-bye to "rights"

[sphealey]

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

Re:Good and Bad

[GigsVT]

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.