Whilst I appreciate your point, I'm not sure the analogy works. Your 'book' (website) is being deployed from your warehouse (web server) and you could chose to not deliver to the customer (the client web browser) based on their location, because of local (to the customer) laws that ban the book.

I think it'd be difficult to argue against that unless someone else was a proxy middleman during the delivery of the book (VPN).

▲

andrewpolidori 2 days ago | parent [-]

Your analogy falls flat because they have to connect to the website, not the other way around. You can't argue that someone requesting access to a page is the same as delivering a book into their borders. They can choose to block access but the website doesn't operate there or owe them anything. They choose to be apart of the connected network, no one forces them.

▲

alphager 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

This is the same thing as suing a NY newspaper in Florida because their website is accessible from Florida.

▲

louthy 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Your analogy falls flat because they have to connect to the website, not the other way around

It’s not my analogy, I’m just running with it ;)

But to run with it more: connecting to the website is analogous to an order. Like a person ordering a book or a patron ordering a drink at a bar. The bartender must ask for ID if they suspect the person is not of age.

If a book was illegal in a location then I think it could be argued that delivering it to the location could be akin to smuggling contraband. So I don’t think your reasoning gets you off criminal liability.

By the way, this is all academic. These laws won’t be enforced. It’s all nonsense. There’ll be some public knuckle wraps for the big providers, but that’ll be it.

If you’re a business that falls foul of the laws, you should still adhere to them. But if you’re a small, self hosted site, nothing will happen. The uk police have no resource for something like this and so unless you’re completely egregious, I think it’s not worth worrying about.

	▲	andrewpolidori 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Let's leave the analogy in it's grave. The point is that the responsibility for delivery falls to the provider of the internet service not the proprietor of the content in another country, who is not a business in the country and not subject to it's laws, the isp can ban connectivity to whoever they want to protect themselves from criminal liability. It's like saying the uk can criminally punish anyone for any content on the internet in any country because their citizens accesed it. It's ridiculous. Agree with the point that it's mostly to extort larger firms who do in fact operate businesses there.
	▲	trailbits 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		A website in the US doesn't deliver anything to the UK, it hands off some packets to a router in the US. Why is the website responsible for what all the interconnecting routers do? If a person from the UK were to visit an adult bookstore in the US, the bookstore owner isn't at fault if the customer decides to move certain material across national boundaries.