It's been a dry, cold season - at least under the Gold Dome. Bills fly through practically unopposed. Major issues like water, guns and Grady are shuffled around with barely a rustle. Heck, even though the Human Right To Life Amendment is still alive, Rep. Bobby Franklin has held his prayer meetings to a murmur.
It's hard out there for a blogger.
Then came SB59.
SB59 has that certain special brand of crazy which inspires the bloggers of Georgia to pull together on the same end of the rope.
Rusty:
First of all it's not enforceable. The only way to arrest the nasty pedophile assisting scofflaws is to raid their hosting facilities. Most of these are either located outside of Georgia or are part of a distributed network across several states. Which brings us to....
...a little thing called the Interstate Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitituion. The power to regulate commerce between the states is explicitly limited to the Federal Government meaning any attempt to affect a business in another state is patently unconstitutional. Even if the hosting facility is in Georgia given the required connectivity to servers elsewhere and the elasticity the Supreme Court has acknowledged in the clause, it would still be patently unconstitutional.
I suppose there is a small chance someone operating solely in Georgia could be arrested by an overzealous law enforcement official. They might even be inconvenienced by some time in the pokey. But imagine the outcry, lawsuits or public damage such a case would cause. Would anyone actually risk that media maelstrom? We should qualify by saying anyone outside the Georgia Senate.
Which brings us to the ultimate point. Jason has it right. Anyone who votes for this thing should be thrown out of office on the simple grounds of idiocy. If our guardians of democracy under the dome can't understand concepts taught in an 11th grade civics class should we really trust them with anything else?
It's hard out there for a blogger.
Then came SB59.
A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 9 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to forgery and fraudulent practices, so as to provide definitions; to provide that it shall be illegal for the owner or operator of a social networking website to allow a minor using a protected computer to create or maintain a profile web page on a social networking website without the permission of the minor's parent or guardian and without providing such parent or guardian access to such profile web page; to provide for penalties; to provide for related matters; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.In other words, unless social networking sites, i.e. twitter, facebook, myspace, lastfm, etc., provide certain parental controls their owners could end up in the hoosegow.
SB59 has that certain special brand of crazy which inspires the bloggers of Georgia to pull together on the same end of the rope.
Rusty:
So, the state Senate wants to try to ban minors from joining MySpace. No word yet on whether they plan to ban church picnics, where minors are actually more at risk than they are on MySpace.Leonard Witt:
Of course, as someone who just started a social networking site for SoCon08 to help Georgia businesses, nonprofits and entrepreneurs, it worries the hell out of me.Jason Pye (who might be ready to storm the castle):
I have an idea. Let's just ban the damn internet. That would solve the problem. Let's bring Georgia back to the stone age. We don't need technology, right? It's evil.Even the heavy hitters at Peach Pundit:
Yet more idiot-based legislation is making its way through our Senate chambers. A few dopes think we can’t teach our kids about the Internets on our own, so they’ll just take it away.Well, while we are all a little excited (and some us grateful for something to finally write about) the fact remains the thing is probably about as useless as hen's teeth.
First of all it's not enforceable. The only way to arrest the nasty pedophile assisting scofflaws is to raid their hosting facilities. Most of these are either located outside of Georgia or are part of a distributed network across several states. Which brings us to....
...a little thing called the Interstate Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitituion. The power to regulate commerce between the states is explicitly limited to the Federal Government meaning any attempt to affect a business in another state is patently unconstitutional. Even if the hosting facility is in Georgia given the required connectivity to servers elsewhere and the elasticity the Supreme Court has acknowledged in the clause, it would still be patently unconstitutional.
I suppose there is a small chance someone operating solely in Georgia could be arrested by an overzealous law enforcement official. They might even be inconvenienced by some time in the pokey. But imagine the outcry, lawsuits or public damage such a case would cause. Would anyone actually risk that media maelstrom? We should qualify by saying anyone outside the Georgia Senate.
Which brings us to the ultimate point. Jason has it right. Anyone who votes for this thing should be thrown out of office on the simple grounds of idiocy. If our guardians of democracy under the dome can't understand concepts taught in an 11th grade civics class should we really trust them with anything else?
5 comments:
I wouldn't go with "patently unconstitutional." It might be, it might not.
But as a law that does not discriminate between Georgia owners/operators or non-Georgia owners/operators, and as said owner/operators of social networking websites could easily be found to be "doing business" in Georgia by virtue of providing their services to Georgians over the Internet, I think you could make a good defense of this law's constitutionality.
This law is dumber than a box of hammers, I grant you that, but to quote Justice Stevens: "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws."
Patently unconstitutional! So let it be written so let it be done!
Seriously though. Unless you have a completely closed system practically every transaction involving the internet is interstate. Whether it's a web host in California, a DNS server in Virginia, ICANN's registration servers or something as simple as your OS contacting the Naval Observatory for the correct time.
For that reason the internet may be the most tied to interstate commerce than any other system we have ever seen.
I think you could make an argument at some very granular levels but once you get to a level as high as this bill, suddenly you are involving a great many states. For that reason I believe the Supremes would definitely step in and say "ours not yours"
The case law appears mixed. See here, here, and here.
Some state laws regulating Internet activity have been struck down on dormant commerce grounds, some have not.
Yepper. I didn't call it "idiot-based" for no clear reason at all.
アーネスト
賃貸
アクサ
三井ダイレクト
設計事務所
ゲーム 専門学校
ウェディング
ショッピング枠 現金化
行政書士
現金化
結婚式
有料老人ホーム
副業
クレジットカード 現金化
看護
ウェディング
earnest
デザイン 専門学校
Post a Comment