←back to thread

693 points macawfish | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.228s | source
Show context
root_axis ◴[] No.44544182[source]
> In fact, under the laws that the Supreme Court just upheld, prosecutors in Tennessee and South Dakota can even reach across state lines and prosecute writers on FELONY charges for a single paragraph of sexually-explicit writing on my site that they think "harmed" kids in their states, facing up to FIFTEEN years in prison, for failing to implement ID-checks on my dinky little free WordPress site.

> It's unlikely these interstate prosecutions would happen...

It might wind up being uncommon, but definitely not unlikely - it's basically assured that it will happen eventually, especially if the judge finds the text in question particularly or personally offensive.

I guess now is a great time to start a KYC company.

replies(7): >>44544219 #>>44544361 #>>44544368 #>>44544431 #>>44546007 #>>44546758 #>>44547821 #
kfajdsl ◴[] No.44544431[source]
If an state AG tries to prosecute an entity that has no ties to the state other than content being passively accessible, that's probably another supreme court case if it doesn't get immediately decided in favor of the defendant in the lower courts. You open a big can of worms if entities are required to proactively comply with regulations in states they have zero presence in.

If Texas wants to block content from entities that have nothing to do with Texas, they can build their own great firewall.

replies(3): >>44544515 #>>44544574 #>>44544760 #
root_axis ◴[] No.44544760[source]
IANAL, but it seems like things are already moving in this direction. For example, FL has a similar state law regarding pornography, and the response from many porn sites has been to comply or block FL IPs rather than fight it up to the supreme court. I guess someone will do it eventually, but I suspect there is an assumption that they'd be wasting their time and money to do so.
replies(1): >>44544976 #
kfajdsl ◴[] No.44544976[source]
Yeah I don't think a business is going to try to force the issue when a geoblock is simple to implement. If it happens, it's probably going to be some kind of advocacy group pushing it.
replies(1): >>44548700 #
1. ojosilva ◴[] No.44548700[source]
Until someone files suit on the commonly known ineffectiveness of geolocating IPs to try to force ID checks instead.