3 ms·
Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendmen
by ImJamal 3y ago
Why would you think it was a federal law domain? The federal government is technically only allowed to do what is granted in the Constitution. The 10th amendment says anything else is left to the states. Last I checked nothing in the constitution mentioned the internet. Not that the federal government lets that stand in their way.
- tracedddd 3y agoI don’t know the specifics of federal authority when it comes to internet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it fell under interstate commerce, which is how they justify federal drug laws.
- ImJamal 3y agoI can live in California and visit a site in California and my traffic might not leave the state. That is pretty much irrelevant now that Wickard v. Filburn is a thing though.
- Facemelters 3y agoThe internet pretty squarely falls under the Commerce Clause
- ImJamal 3y agoI can live in California and visit a site in California and my traffic might not leave the state. That is pretty much irrelevant now that Wickard v. Filburn is a thing though.
- hn_acker 3y agoInternet communications which exit/enter the state do, but there's still the issue of communications which stay within the state. The states have Congress-given authority to regulate intrastate (not interstate) internet communications. Moreover, by reclassifying broadband from Title II to Title I, the FCC gave up the part of its authority that allowed it to preempt state net neutrality laws. I wrote more on this technicality in a different comment [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37946794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37946794
- dragonwriter 3y agoEven when conduct could Constitutionally be regulated by the federal government under the Commerce Clause, that doesn't preclude state regulation unless Congress has (1) specificallly regulated that states may not regulate, or (2) has regulated in a way which the State regulations at issue would fundamentally conflict with. So, yes, the internet is Constititionally a thing the federal government can regulate, but that doesn't make it Constitutionally a thing state governments can not regulate.
- l33t7332273 3y agoLike the other comment said, the internet is basically as interstate as a thing can get by design. The interstate commerce clause is extremely broadly interpreted. It can, for example, be used to prevent a farmer from growing grain on their own farm to feed their own cattle that reside on that very farm(Wickard v. Filburn)
- thebradbain 3y agoYet it can’t be used to stop California vehicle emission standards, which is why almost all car manufacturers in the US make cars up to California’s higher standards, because they’re so big.
- l33t7332273 3y agoRight but the internet is inherently an interstate enterprise. That’s why I feel it likely falls under the purview of congress.
- bigstrat2003 3y agoIn fairness, while I detest that California's laws become de facto national laws, it doesn't seem appropriate to use the commerce clause there. California isn't trying to regulate interstate commerce, it's not their fault that manufacturers are too cheap to have different models that meet California's standards while having a normal model for the rest of the country.
- pyuser583 3y agoWe use the commerce clause everywhere.
- bigstrat2003 3y agoI know. And we shouldn't.
- ImJamal 3y agoI think Wickard vs Filburn is one of the worst decided cases out there. If I live in California and visit a website hosted in California there is no reason why there should be any interstate commerce involved.