4 ms·

Ironically, I can't access the cited bills, possibly because I', not within the States: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill/AB105 https

by TZubiri 11mo ago

Ironically, I can't access the cited bills, possibly because I', not within the States: https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill/AB105 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2025/proposals/reg/asm/bill... I wanted to double check that the bill "demands that websites block VPN users from Wisconsin", as opposed to "demand that adult sites hosted in Wisconsin block VPN users in general" or "demand that Wisconsin VPN providers or Wisconsin/US compliant providers block websites according to the registered user's location rather than their proxy location". The details are important, and I don't trust that either "the lawmakers are idiots", or that treating the opposition as idiots is productive in general. Laymen, and legally trained laymen have just as much say in technical matters as technical folk. Lest we setup the feared technocracy...

sudobash1 11mo ago
From the bill summary: > The bill also requires a business entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material to prevent persons from accessing the website from an internet protocol address or internet protocol address range that is linked to or known to be a virtual private network system or provider. Later: > A business entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material shall prevent persons from accessing the website from an internet protocol address or internet protocol address range that is linked to or known to be a virtual private network system or virtual private network provider. No mention is given to where the business is located.
- TZubiri 11mo ago
  Thank you! It looks like the interpretation of the article is quite incorrect, there is no part of the law that demands that porn websites "block VPN users from wisconsin". Rather that: 1- Porn websites must block underage users from wisconsin. 2- VPN websites must block underage users from wisconsin from accessing . 3- Porn websites must block vpn users in general. And this is not strictly laid out in the law, the law specifies the functional requirements, and we are estimating how the technical implementation will play out, the author strawmanned a stupid hypothetical technical implementation to paint lawmakers as technical troglodytes.
zdragnar 11mo ago
The wording of the bill is as follows: (c) A business entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material shall prevent persons from accessing the website from an internet protocol address or internet protocol address range that is linked to or known to be a virtual private network system or virtual private network provider. In effect, Wisconsin is demanding that no publisher of obscene materials (porn, basically) allow anyone to access their content via VPN. The wording of the bill doesn't care whether or not either the person viewing the content or the data center that publishes the content is in Wisconsin. With that said, Wisconsin won't be able to bring charges, and the civil liability portion won't trigger, unless one or the other does happen to be in Wisconsin. Where the bill gets its teeth on the VPN side of things is in section (4) of the assembly bill, which is probably intended for parents of children to sue publishers: (4) Civil liability. (a) A person alleging a violation of sub. (2) or (3) may bring an action seeking actual and punitive damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees notwithstanding s. 814.04 (1). A person bringing an action under this paragraph is not required to first exhaust any relevant administrative remedies. In short, if my child uses a VPN to circumvent the age verification rules or some other safeguard to access the obscene materials, I can sue any site that operates in or employs people in Wisconsin for damages in a civil lawsuit for punitive damages. Alternatively, if my child accessed the material from a computer in Wisconsin, that would also be grounds for such a lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, don't take this as legal advice.
- TZubiri 11mo ago
  So it seems that the article is factually incorrect and is quite obtuse in interpreting that the lawmakers are idiots. The bill demands that porn distributors OR VPN providers that deliver content to Wisconsin residents, must block traffic from virtual private networks. "In short, if my child uses a VPN to circumvent the age verification rules or some other safeguard to access the obscene materials, I can sue any site that operates in or employs people in Wisconsin for damages in a civil lawsuit for punitive damages." I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I believe that any company that operates outside of the State but serves residents of the Wisconsin state would still be in violation and the State of Wisconsin and its laws would still have jurisdiction. If your website serves users from Wisconsin, it must abide by Wisconsin laws and both Wisconsin jurisdiction and venue is proper, absent any other agreement (which would be null anyways if the Wisconsin resident is a minor). I think it's more that the author of this article is being obtuse AND "has no idea" about law.

by TZubiri 11mo ago

sudobash1 11mo ago

From the bill summary: > The bill also requires a business entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material to prevent persons from accessing the website from an internet protocol address or internet protocol address range that is linked to or known to be a virtual private network system or provider. Later: > A business entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material shall prevent persons from accessing the website from an internet protocol address or internet protocol address range that is linked to or known to be a virtual private network system or virtual private network provider. No mention is given to where the business is located.

TZubiri 11mo ago
Thank you! It looks like the interpretation of the article is quite incorrect, there is no part of the law that demands that porn websites "block VPN users from wisconsin". Rather that: 1- Porn websites must block underage users from wisconsin. 2- VPN websites must block underage users from wisconsin from accessing . 3- Porn websites must block vpn users in general. And this is not strictly laid out in the law, the law specifies the functional requirements, and we are estimating how the technical implementation will play out, the author strawmanned a stupid hypothetical technical implementation to paint lawmakers as technical troglodytes.

zdragnar 11mo ago

The wording of the bill is as follows: (c) A business entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the Internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material shall prevent persons from accessing the website from an internet protocol address or internet protocol address range that is linked to or known to be a virtual private network system or virtual private network provider. In effect, Wisconsin is demanding that no publisher of obscene materials (porn, basically) allow anyone to access their content via VPN. The wording of the bill doesn't care whether or not either the person viewing the content or the data center that publishes the content is in Wisconsin. With that said, Wisconsin won't be able to bring charges, and the civil liability portion won't trigger, unless one or the other does happen to be in Wisconsin. Where the bill gets its teeth on the VPN side of things is in section (4) of the assembly bill, which is probably intended for parents of children to sue publishers: (4) Civil liability. (a) A person alleging a violation of sub. (2) or (3) may bring an action seeking actual and punitive damages, court costs, and reasonable attorney fees notwithstanding s. 814.04 (1). A person bringing an action under this paragraph is not required to first exhaust any relevant administrative remedies. In short, if my child uses a VPN to circumvent the age verification rules or some other safeguard to access the obscene materials, I can sue any site that operates in or employs people in Wisconsin for damages in a civil lawsuit for punitive damages. Alternatively, if my child accessed the material from a computer in Wisconsin, that would also be grounds for such a lawsuit. I'm not a lawyer, don't take this as legal advice.

TZubiri 11mo ago
So it seems that the article is factually incorrect and is quite obtuse in interpreting that the lawmakers are idiots. The bill demands that porn distributors OR VPN providers that deliver content to Wisconsin residents, must block traffic from virtual private networks. "In short, if my child uses a VPN to circumvent the age verification rules or some other safeguard to access the obscene materials, I can sue any site that operates in or employs people in Wisconsin for damages in a civil lawsuit for punitive damages." I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but I believe that any company that operates outside of the State but serves residents of the Wisconsin state would still be in violation and the State of Wisconsin and its laws would still have jurisdiction. If your website serves users from Wisconsin, it must abide by Wisconsin laws and both Wisconsin jurisdiction and venue is proper, absent any other agreement (which would be null anyways if the Wisconsin resident is a minor). I think it's more that the author of this article is being obtuse AND "has no idea" about law.