Re:Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access
by roywiggins on Sunday March 26, 2023 @12:29AM
(#35310947)
I may be with, but I think it depends on whether it actually conflicts with any federal law. States can pass laws that affect interstate commerce if there's no superceding federal law and if they don't fall afoul of the Dormant Commerce Clause, which sort of generically restricts interstate protectionism.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access
by Buttons840 on Sunday March 26, 2023 @12:55AM
(#35311103)
So, for example, I could setup a server in Oregon, which responds to requests received from other servers in Oregon[0], and then suddenly I find myself in legal trouble in Florida? Why am I subject to Florida law when I live in Oregon, and I have no representation in the Florida legislature?
[0]: In this example, I connect to an Oregon ISP and respond to requests being relayed through this ISP, but I never directly connect to servers in other states. This is a reductionist view, and may be silly, but it helps make my point.
Re:Utah is first US state to limit teen social media access
by roywiggins on Sunday March 26, 2023 @01:09AM
(#35311183)
I think that goes to jurisdiction, which is a different issue.
The sibling comment by dragonwriter (which I missed somehow when posting) is a better-worded version of my point about interstate commerce.