5 ms·

A Utah resident connects to a server in California, controlled by a company in California. This seems like interstate commerce to me, and is thus regulated by f

A Utah resident connects to a server in California, controlled by a company in California. This seems like interstate commerce to me, and is thus regulated by federal law, not the laws of individual states. Consider Wickard v. Filburn[0], in which the courts ruled that a farmer growing crops on his own land, to feed to his own animals, all within a single state, was participating in "interstate commerce". Given this extreme bias towards classifying everything as interstate commerce, I can't imagine that a Utah resident connecting to a California company wouldn't also interstate commerce. This isn't something Utah can regulate. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

ryanfreeborn 4y ago
Yup. Federal law enforcement uses interstate nexus via server locations to establish jurisdiction.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> A Utah resident connects to a server in California, controlled by a company in California. This seems like interstate commerce to me, and is thus regulated by federal law, not the laws of individual states. Interstate commerce is generally subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state governments, except that state laws which discriminate against out-of-state trade are presumptively illegal, state law cannot negate federal law, and federal law can explicitly (and sometimes implicitly) forbid state regulation of the same conduct. It is not the case that the mere fact that it involves interstate commerce automatically, without federal law addressing the subject, precludes state regulation. OTOH, to the extent that the elements of site design likely to be challenged under this are very closely related to the functions protected by Section 230, which does include a preemption clause, even if this is otherwise Constitutional applying it is going to often be tricky in practice.
roywiggins 4y ago
I may be wrong, but I think it depends on whether it actually conflicts with any federal law. States can pass laws that affect interstate commerce if there's no superceding federal law and if they don't fall afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause, which sort of generically restricts interstate protectionism.
- Buttons840 4y ago
  So, for example, I could setup a server in Oregon, which responds to requests received from other servers in Oregon[0], and then suddenly I find myself in legal trouble in Florida? Why am I subject to Florida law when I live in Oregon, and I have no representation in the Florida legislature? [0]: In this example, I connect to an Oregon ISP and respond to requests being relayed through this ISP, but I never directly connect to servers in other states. This is a reductionist view, and may be silly, but it helps make my point.
  - roywiggins 4y ago
    I think that goes to jurisdiction, which is a different issue. The sibling comment by dragonwriter (which I missed somehow when posting) is a better-worded version of my point about interstate commerce.
sircastor 4y ago
Assuming they acknowledge this at all, more and more laws are being written and passed knowing full well they violate federal law and will be challenged. The intent is not regulation of society, it’s political visibility and winning “points” among your electorate. Whether the law stands scrutiny is irrelevant
- shostack 4y ago
  Don't forget trying to tee things up for our extremist leaning SCOTUS bench.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Posts like yours only serve to vindicate this new law(bill?) in Utah.
    - shostack 4y ago
      Care to explain your statement?
prpl 4y ago
In a fun twist, the data centers are quite possibly in Utah. That said, assuredly Meta, Twitter, etc… have some kind of foot print in Utah
- sacnoradhq 4y ago
  Meta has Eagle Mountain. It's ~ $3B CapEx + ? OpEx. If it means billion in losses, it would pull up stakes and move. https://datacenters.atmeta.com/all-locations/#united-states https://datacenters.atmeta.com/all-locations/#united-states
dehrmann 4y ago
> This isn't something Utah can regulate. The stream of commerce doctrine gets silly pretty quickly since literally everything has some degree of it. I was convinced federal courts wouldn't allow states to collect sales tax on out-of-state purchases (or at least say states can't enforce it), that seems to be ok.
soerxpso 4y ago
You are so smart! I suppose now I can start a gambling site for users in all states, in violation of state regulations, as long as the servers are hosted in a state with loose gambling laws. Can't believe other gambling sites weren't doing this!

ryanfreeborn 4y ago

Yup. Federal law enforcement uses interstate nexus via server locations to establish jurisdiction.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> A Utah resident connects to a server in California, controlled by a company in California. This seems like interstate commerce to me, and is thus regulated by federal law, not the laws of individual states. Interstate commerce is generally subject to concurrent jurisdiction of the federal and state governments, except that state laws which discriminate against out-of-state trade are presumptively illegal, state law cannot negate federal law, and federal law can explicitly (and sometimes implicitly) forbid state regulation of the same conduct. It is not the case that the mere fact that it involves interstate commerce automatically, without federal law addressing the subject, precludes state regulation. OTOH, to the extent that the elements of site design likely to be challenged under this are very closely related to the functions protected by Section 230, which does include a preemption clause, even if this is otherwise Constitutional applying it is going to often be tricky in practice.

roywiggins 4y ago

I may be wrong, but I think it depends on whether it actually conflicts with any federal law. States can pass laws that affect interstate commerce if there's no superceding federal law and if they don't fall afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause, which sort of generically restricts interstate protectionism.

Buttons840 4y ago
So, for example, I could setup a server in Oregon, which responds to requests received from other servers in Oregon[0], and then suddenly I find myself in legal trouble in Florida? Why am I subject to Florida law when I live in Oregon, and I have no representation in the Florida legislature? [0]: In this example, I connect to an Oregon ISP and respond to requests being relayed through this ISP, but I never directly connect to servers in other states. This is a reductionist view, and may be silly, but it helps make my point.
- roywiggins 4y ago
  I think that goes to jurisdiction, which is a different issue. The sibling comment by dragonwriter (which I missed somehow when posting) is a better-worded version of my point about interstate commerce.

sircastor 4y ago

Assuming they acknowledge this at all, more and more laws are being written and passed knowing full well they violate federal law and will be challenged. The intent is not regulation of society, it’s political visibility and winning “points” among your electorate. Whether the law stands scrutiny is irrelevant

shostack 4y ago
Don't forget trying to tee things up for our extremist leaning SCOTUS bench.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Posts like yours only serve to vindicate this new law(bill?) in Utah.
  - shostack 4y ago
    Care to explain your statement?

prpl 4y ago

In a fun twist, the data centers are quite possibly in Utah. That said, assuredly Meta, Twitter, etc… have some kind of foot print in Utah

sacnoradhq 4y ago
Meta has Eagle Mountain. It's ~ $3B CapEx + ? OpEx. If it means billion in losses, it would pull up stakes and move. https://datacenters.atmeta.com/all-locations/#united-states https://datacenters.atmeta.com/all-locations/#united-states

dehrmann 4y ago

> This isn't something Utah can regulate. The stream of commerce doctrine gets silly pretty quickly since literally everything has some degree of it. I was convinced federal courts wouldn't allow states to collect sales tax on out-of-state purchases (or at least say states can't enforce it), that seems to be ok.

soerxpso 4y ago

You are so smart! I suppose now I can start a gambling site for users in all states, in violation of state regulations, as long as the servers are hosted in a state with loose gambling laws. Can't believe other gambling sites weren't doing this!