This is bullshit. It should be on mississippi to block the sites or require local isps to block them. The providers are on the internet and not going out to be in mississippi. Places should wall themselves off if they can't handle the internet.

[–] Prox@lemmy.world 40 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

Or - hear me out here - it shouldn't be on anybody to do anything because the law itself is garbage and should not exist.

[–] IllNess@infosec.pub 9 points 21 hours ago

It should fall on the parents and ISPs should have an opt in option to block adult websites.

But we all know this is more about control and data harvesting than anything else.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

But the question is, what would be a reasonable legal principle for preventing such laws generally? Mississippi is going to pass bullshit laws, but it shouldn't be possible for the jurisdiction of any state to be anything on the entire internet.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

Or what about fireworks. They're not legal in all states, but you can travel to another state and buy them with an ID from a state where they are illegal. Airguns are considered real firearms in NJ and require a permit, but you can drive to PA and buy them, they don't need to make sure that they're legal in your state.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

In those cases it seems like the law does prevent state level regulation of those things, because the state is only allowed to regulate commerce happening within its borders, not what its residents do elsewhere (although they can still also regulate the use of fireworks and airguns, but enforcement is more difficult, for instance where I am they sometimes send out notices in the mail warning that it's against the law for individuals to be setting off fireworks but there's always a massive decentralized fireworks show every 4th of July anyway).

Somehow with the internet, the location of the server isn't the thing that matters, it's whose computer is accessing it and where that person and computer is located, and the liability is on the server not the user. IMO it should not work that way, because then every state with regressive politics has a stranglehold on the whole internet.

[–] bigfondue@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Yea that's my point. Unless these companies are hosted in MS, have offices, or sell ads there, there's nothing legally they can do. But rule of law doesn't seem to doing so hot these days, so I wouldn't be surprised if the Federal gov stepped in pressure companies into complying.

[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

Unless these companies are hosted in MS, have offices, or sell ads there, there’s nothing legally they can do.

Is that really how it works? Haven't legal challenges to these sorts of laws already been appealed up to the supreme court and they were upheld?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 4 points 22 hours ago

yup but at least then they would be leading the charge for people to leave their state.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago

Psssshhhh!!!!! Get outta here with that solid logic, and critical thinking! We don't use reasoning in this country! We just cry and scream until everybody ELSE caves to the demands!

[–] crank0271@lemmy.world 14 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

You're right. Imagine having to put more resources into Mississippi than Mississippi puts into anything.

How would other countries have responded if instead of building The Great Firewall, China had demanded each international company not allow Chinese citizens within China to access certain parts of their websites?

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 9 points 20 hours ago

Yeah what you have at the end is sorta my thought line. You want to go all censorship at least get off your ass and do it yourself.