Daruma

11:20 am EST

Edward Leyden discussed the commerce clause in the context of the Internet. The Internet is a global thing in nature. The Supreme Court has recognized this. The Internet is a unique and wholly new means of communication available to anyone in the world. A good starting point is what the commerce clause says is that the states may not regulate commerce.

Can state regulation burden foreign commerce?

Many previous cases brought by states have already been shot down.

Here we are dealing with a law enforcement measure on properties located outside the commonwealth. Kentucky lacks the authority to regulate.

This proposed forfeiture act would deprive individuals from engaging in the activity in other jurisdictions where the activity is lawful.

These are not criminal enterprises. They pay taxes. They follow rules. They are regulated. In some cases they are publicly traded (The London Stock Exchange). They are located in places we consider allies: Great Britain, Latin America, etc...

It is time we dispel this notion that these (domain owners) are renegades.

This burden is so far reaching it will destroy commerce. This burden cannot be justified in light of the excessive commercial pain that this causes.

__________________