Muddy Waters

                Greg Lastowka wrote,“The jurisdictional problems posed by cyberspace were recognized early in the history of Internet law. One radical question posed was this: if the Internet creates jurisdictional problems, why not use the Internet to solve these problems? The Internet could be its own jurisdiction, with its own laws, created by its own “consent of the governed” (pg. 80). The problem of jurisdiction on the internet is that no one has total control of what can and can’t be done on the internet. Since that is the case then how would a person be punished if caught doing something illegal on the web. The point of the internet is to be independent and have the ability to do whatever a person wants to.

                An article by Georg Krog, gives an example of two conflicts of internet jurisdiction. The first case was Bennett versus Hosting.com for improper venue. The case got dismissed by the U.S district court of northern California because, “…despite Bennett’s contention that it was unenforceable for unconscionability and inapplicable to her tort claims.” The second case was between Kruska versus Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc. (and other defendants) for filed defamation, cyberstalking, and other claims. The claims made by Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc, which they put on there website were that Mrs. Kruska was a child molester and pedophile. A U.S. District Court in Arizona dismissed the complaint against Perverted Justice Foundation based on a lack of personal jurisdiction.

Georg Krog's article

                Georg Krog’s article parallels well with the expanding uncertainty of the internets jurisdiction and how it should be dealt with. One of Greg Lastowka’s points he is trying to make in his book is that internet jurisdiction is still rough around the edges. In the second case featuring Kruska vs. Perverted Justice Foundation, how would you punish the website when it is spreading its information throughout the world? There is no territorial law that can be used because it is spreading its knowledge to millions of people everywhere who visit the site. Greg Lastowka makes the argument that the internet should have its own rules so that in the cases brought up by Krog do not happen because there is a clear distinction of law. In my opinion, with internet jurisdiction becoming more relevant something is going to have to happen. Right now, in today’s society internet is like muddy water, unclear and inconsistent. Greg Lastowka’s idea about the internet having its own laws makes the most sense because then they are set in stone and when problems arise we can handle them with the cyberspace rules instead of using the legal system that we have now.