3 ms·
Laws are also the most effective tool for destroying rights, arguably much more so than protecting them. So the flip side of your position that someone needs t
by nullc 1y ago
Laws are also the most effective tool for destroying rights, arguably much more so than protecting them.
So the flip side of your position that someone needs to be subject to a foreign law when dealing with a foreign party because otherwise that parties right might be stommped is that they also need the means to block interactions with that foreign party so their own rights aren't potentially stomped.
In the case where there are sales you might actually know where the other parties reside, but in the majority of interactions online you don't and there is no great means to control your exposure to other jurisdictions.
- gamblor956 1y agothey also need the means to block interactions with that foreign party so their own rights aren't potentially stomped Yes. That's the point. If you choose to do business with someone you also accept the jurisdiction of their local courts and laws. If you don't want that risk then do business locally.
- nullc 1y agoThis exposure however isn't limited just to 'business'. When you make comments online or publish open source code you're also potentially exposing yourself to other jurisdictions and their laws.