The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
But the real reason behind the push to federalize these rules is not the cost of complying with different regulatory schemes. It's a desire to reduce regulations, period. They are not interested in uniformity, they are interested in lowering the bar.

I think this is unfair. Clearly, sometimes it's about lowering the bar. Or rationalizing the bar. But not always. I know that in one area in which I work (security breach notification laws) the impacted industries really do just want uniformity above all else, although certainly wouldn't mind if they could pare back some of the loopier state laws (i.e., Illinois, which is extremely overzealous in its notification - you know you've overshot your mark when businesses are holding out California as a better model of balancing interests).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I think this is unfair. Clearly, sometimes it's about lowering the bar. Or rationalizing the bar. But not always. I know that in one area in which I work (security breach notification laws) the impacted industries really do just want uniformity above all else, although certainly wouldn't mind if they could pare back some of the loopier state laws (i.e., Illinois, which is extremely overzealous in its notification - you know you've overshot your mark when businesses are holding out California as a better model of balancing interests).

Since we're talking about food-safety regulation, I feel fairly comfortable saying that the issue is the underlying requirements, not the labeling.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Thank you. Lots of clients will be interested. Lots of clients will be checking to see if they are qualified to do business in NJ and/or will be yanking out equipment if this bill passes.

I'm surprised it's not called the "NJ Don't Need No Stinkin' Technology Companies Act of 2006"

2. Why not just have in the ToS an agreement not to use the service in New Jersey?

Anyway, I suspect this is unconstitutional on its face.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch


But the real reason behind the push to federalize these rules is not the cost of complying with different regulatory schemes. It's a desire to reduce regulations, period. They are not interested in uniformity, they are interested in lowering the bar.

That's fine, but then the debate should be about the bar. You've raised a separate question, which I've challenged. I still have yet to see a principled reason from you or someone else as to why the federal government should be able to set minimum standards but not set maximum standards. Or, put differently, why states can't opt out of any federal standards either to make them more or less rigorous because of local conditions adn assessments of the costs.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
If South Dakota passed stricter requirements than California, do you think manufacturers would change their fleets nationwide?

California has market power; that's why businesses respond. Those who find it too expensive are free not to sell here, or not to sell all models here (as, you point out, some do).

There's a principle firmly embodied in our constitutional system of federalism.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
2. Why not just have in the ToS an agreement not to use the service in New Jersey?

Anyway, I suspect this is unconstitutional on its face.

I'd be more concerned if I were a business with an actual presence in NJ. I think what a company in NJ would have to do to avoid liability is pack up all its servers, fire or transfer all it's NJ employees, and open up somewhere else.

NJ's message is simple: get out. We don't want your jobs or your taxes.

As an added bonus, moving out of NJ probably lowers labor and real estate costs significantly.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
New NJ Bill belw - Not sure to what extent NJ has jurisdiction:

• 1. As used in this act:
  
  "Information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
  
  "Interactive computer service" means any information system, service, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides service to the Internet.
  
  "Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
  
  "Internet service provider" or "provider" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that provides individuals, corporations, or other entities with the ability to connect to the Internet through equipment that is located in this State.
  
  "Operator" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that operates an interactive computer service.
  
  
  
  2. The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate.
  
  3. An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.
  
  4. Any person who is damaged by false or defamatory written messages that originate from an information content provider who posts such messages on a public forum website may file suit in Superior Court against an operator or provider that fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required pursuant to section 2 of P.L. , c. (C.) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, cost of investigation and litigation from such operator or provider.
  
  
  
  5. This act shall take effect on the 90th day following enactment.
  

Think of what a disaster this law would create. It'll never fly in this present format.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since we're talking about food-safety regulation, I feel fairly comfortable saying that the issue is the underlying requirements, not the labeling.

I thought the original motivation was a california reg. that required a warning food was potentially dangerous because of some process used to prepare it. It wasn't to ban food made by the process, was it?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
New NJ Bill belw - Not sure to what extent NJ has jurisdiction:

• 1. As used in this act:
  
  "Information content provider" means any person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of information provided through the Internet or any other interactive computer service.
  
  "Interactive computer service" means any information system, service, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides service to the Internet.
  
  "Internet" means the international computer network of both federal and non-federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
  
  "Internet service provider" or "provider" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that provides individuals, corporations, or other entities with the ability to connect to the Internet through equipment that is located in this State.
  
  "Operator" means any person, business or organization qualified to do business in this State that operates an interactive computer service.
  
  
  
  2. The operator of any interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish, maintain and enforce a policy to require any information content provider who posts written messages on a public forum website either to be identified by a legal name and address, or to register a legal name and address with the operator of the interactive computer service or the Internet service provider through which the information content provider gains access to the interactive computer service or Internet, as appropriate.
  
  3. An operator of an interactive computer service or an Internet service provider shall establish and maintain reasonable procedures to enable any person to request and obtain disclosure of the legal name and address of an information content provider who posts false or defamatory information about the person on a public forum website.
  
  4. Any person who is damaged by false or defamatory written messages that originate from an information content provider who posts such messages on a public forum website may file suit in Superior Court against an operator or provider that fails to establish, maintain and enforce the policy required pursuant to section 2 of P.L. , c. (C.) (pending before the Legislature as this bill), and may recover compensatory and punitive damages and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee, cost of investigation and litigation from such operator or provider.
  
  
  
  5. This act shall take effect on the 90th day following enactment.
  

The entire New Jersey State Legislature sucks dick. Except for the females. They suck dog dick. There, motherfuckers. Come and get me.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm surprised it's not called the "NJ Don't Need No Stinkin' Technology Companies Act of 2006"

I think it's called the "New Jersey is Too Fucking Stoopid to Understand the Dormant Commerce Clause Act."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think it's called the "New Jersey is Too Fucking Stoopid to Understand the Dormant Commerce Clause Act."

Aren't the states currently prohibited from regulating the internet?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Aren't the states currently prohibited from regulating the internet?

Virginia has a crimnal statute banning spam. it is under challenge under the commerce clause. To my knowledge, there is no federal statute banning state regulation of its use expressly ,however (which is why they're relying on the constitutional argument).

Not sure why a state can't adopt such a law (absent federal preemption, though). The NY Times is subject to libel laws in 50 states, which differ. So long as they all are consistent with teh first amendment, so be it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'd be more concerned if I were a business with an actual presence in NJ.

I think it will be scaled back to only deal with companies in NJ or incorporated in NJ.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Virginia has a crimnal statute banning spam. it is under challenge under the commerce clause. To my knowledge, there is no federal statute banning state regulation of its use expressly ,however (which is why they're relying on the constitutional argument).

Not sure why a state can't adopt such a law (absent federal preemption, though). The NY Times is subject to libel laws in 50 states, which differ. So long as they all are consistent with teh first amendment, so be it.

I believe there is a federal ban on state internet sales taxes. Not sure if it's a specific preemptive statute or falls under a more general preemptive statute.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The entire New Jersey State Legislature sucks dick. Except for the females. They suck dog dick. There, motherfuckers. Come and get me.

Were they to sue you for defamation, they'd be open to liability under their own Frivolous Litigation Statute.