But I don't want you to know who I am!

[Not Afraid]

Can they wear their low-cut jeans while picking up trash by the side of the road?

[mousepod]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I could be mistaken, but I believe Mousepod is from New Jersey, isn't he? He's no longer, so it's not his fault.

Didin't they just ban smoking in strip joints, too?

Yeah... my parents still live there. I'm going to have to have a word with them.

[wendybeth]

About the internet thing, or the strip joint thing?

Things are weirder than usual- no wonder Hunter checked out. A person has to be in battle-ready form to be able to withstand the crap coming down the pike. Everywhere you turn, rights are being restricted and in some cases eradicted, and sooner or later it will get to the point where only but the most comfortably fascist and/or well-financed will not be affected.

[Drince88]

Originally Posted by Matterhorn Fan

Oh, I doubt it. The key word there is "proposed," meaning some wacky government-type thought something up, and some reporter wrote a wacky story that ended up on Yahoo's "offbeat news" section.

This was a while ago (more than 6 months ago - back when the legislature could waste their time ) - and I remember it particularly with respect to guys - The criteria was undergarments showing.

And back to the OP - what happens if I'm traveling to NJ and posting from there? I'm contemplating renting points from a DVC member, and I'm probably going to use my work address because I don't want to have to deal with random strangers getting my home address. (Mind you, I'm proposing a few hundred dollar transaction with this stranger, but that doesn't bother me QUITE as much as them having my address.)

[The Shadoe]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Nope, would be the end of message boards.

Of course, if I have anything to say about it ... The LoT would flaunt any such unconstitutional regulation.

I hope you meant "flout", not "flaunt".

[DisneyFan25863]

Originally Posted by Drince88

This was a while ago (more than 6 months ago - back when the legislature could waste their time ) - and I remember it particularly with respect to guys - The criteria was undergarments showing.

What if you wore undergarments under the undergarments? Would it then be legal for the outer layer of undergarments to show?


And what about Superheros? Would they be required put their undergarments under their clothes?

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by blueerica

Actually, I'm waiting for Prudence's analysis of the situation, I realize...

Er, um,

I'm not sure how this will go. Courts are generally way behind the times when it comes to technology and tend to fail to appreciate the realities of how people use technology.

Can a service provider in one state, providing content legal in that state, be charged with violating the laws of another state when citizens of state B used that service? (Does that even make sense? I'm so tired...)

Example: US v Thomas (74 F.3d 701, if you want to look it up) was a federal obscenity case. I might miss some details because I don't feel like reading it, but basically a BBS in California made pornography files available for download. A Postal Inspector in Tennessee signed up for the BBS, downloaded the files, and then charged the BBS with violating obscenity standards for interstate transportation of obscene materials. Obscenity is evaluated based on "community" standards and while the images were not considered obscene in California, they were considered obscene. The burden was on the BBS to refuse access to folk from Tennessee. Which then brought up all sorts of fun issues about the nature of "community standards" in a webbed world and really demonstrated (in my opinion) just how behind the times the court can be.

Anyhow, this isn't an exact match, of course, but there are similarities - there's a precedent of requiring one state to follow the "rules" of a different state when providing BBS services - so why not for the Internet?

One significant differece is that US v. Thomas involved a federal law, albeit one that can be interpreted differently depending on where one is. NJ is considering a state law, and thus might be stepping on Congress and the Commerce powers. It arguably affects interstate commerce, I think.

But the commerce clause makes my head hurt so I'm going to stop talking about it.

[€uroMeinke]

Interesting

I do wonder how one would be expected to enforce it. You caould require it part of registration, but what do you verify the information against? I suspect an awful lot of John Smiths and M. Bormans to sign up.

On the other hand, here on LoT there are few of you that I don't know personally, so privacy in some ways has already been forfieted.

I think what troubles me most about this kind of thing is that the lines between home and work are getting fuzzy and the workplace is creeping more into the home and limiting speach in ways governments cannot (i.e. terminating employees that talk about their workplace). Already I've heard too many stories of that kind of thing happening.

I think we need more safe havens than our lawyers, priests, and doctors for us to be able to talk freely about our lives without fear of retribution.

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I think what troubles me most about this kind of thing is that the lines between home and work are getting fuzzy and the workplace is creeping more into the home and limiting speach in ways governments cannot (i.e. terminating employees that talk about their workplace). Already I've heard too many stories of that kind of thing happening.

Heck, workplaces are limiting speech and behavior outside the workplace, even when the speech/behavior isn't particularly related to their work. We're marching down the road to "we just don't want that type of person associated with my business." Hell, if the taxpayers ever saw the contents of my bedside cabinet I'm sure there'd be an expose on the nightly news. Happened to someone I know.

[MickeyLumbo]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

No, but if it's passed nad somehow holds up under court scrutiny, it's likely to be brought up in other states, if not federally.

haha - you said nad.