567
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
567 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
1193 readers
192 users here now
For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.
Rule 1-3, 6 & 7 No longer applicable
Rule 4: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.
Rule 5: Be excellent to each other. Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.
The Epstein Files: Trump, Trafficking, and the Unraveling Cover-Up
Info Video about techniques used in cults (and politics)
Bookmark Vault of Trump's First Term
Media owners, CEOs and/or board members
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Seems to be the intention.
They should go further and ban people from leaving the state, since that could also be used to circumvent the ban.
Luckily due to the United States Constitution, the states can't tell you where you can and cannot go. Obviously with the police they can do whatever the fuck they want but officially we can go over we want.
I mean you could make the argument that the commerce clause tells the state they can't ban VPNs. Ultimately it will be up to the SC to dictate the laws as they have been lately.
You know what, you're right one could make the argument that states don't even have the authority to ban vpns.
They can totally ban VPNs in the state. They can't ban VPNs out of the state.
It's kind of seems like that would be a state regulating interstate commerce. And international Commerce which is exclusively the Federal prerogative.
If they tried to ban a VPN outside of the state I would agree with you. Also, the way the law is written you have to know that is what the service is being used for to be criminally liable.
I will admit this could cause a chilling situation where VPNs voluntarily block these sites when a user can be determined to be from this state. I think that is their intention though.
These people have bank accounts. What not just pass a law saying banks can’t take payments from these sites instead of banning VPNs?
Because banks have a better lobby and pay better.
Prior to New Jersey amending their state constitution to allow online sports betting in 2011, and mostly leading to the opening of online gambling we're experiencing now, enforcement was usually taken against the "casinos" rather than the handlers. Back then it was CEOs of the betting companies getting caught on their flight layovers and charged with the illegal gambling stuff.
Doubt the intention is to enforce against the gamblers for the reasons already implied here, like the difficulty of tracking and enforcing vpn monitoring.
So do they have a business exception or are they just saying fuck everyone including businesses? Which would be surprising.