I don’t see how they are going to prove that though. The website is going to say they sent the packets to someone in Russia (or wherever the vpn is.) My point is, I don’t even see how they can selectively enforce this.
I don’t see how they are going to prove that though. The website is going to say they sent the packets to someone in Russia (or wherever the vpn is.)
They don’t have to.
What the law does is remove the ability for the company to apply the defense ‘I knew they were located in Russia’.
The State only has to prove two elements 1. The person was physically in Utah and 2. That they did business.
This law makes it so that there is no ‘I didn’t know’ defense.
My point is, I don’t even see how they can selectively enforce this.
A State investigator makes an account, uses a VPN, and ‘does business with’ the site.
When they bring the case to court. The site is guilty because they can prove that the investigator was in Utah and that they did business with the site.
States love to do this, they remove the mens rea (guilty mind) element so that you’re guilty regardless of your knowledge or intent.
I don’t see how they are going to prove that though. The website is going to say they sent the packets to someone in Russia (or wherever the vpn is.) My point is, I don’t even see how they can selectively enforce this.
They don’t have to.
What the law does is remove the ability for the company to apply the defense ‘I knew they were located in Russia’.
The State only has to prove two elements 1. The person was physically in Utah and 2. That they did business.
This law makes it so that there is no ‘I didn’t know’ defense.
A State investigator makes an account, uses a VPN, and ‘does business with’ the site.
When they bring the case to court. The site is guilty because they can prove that the investigator was in Utah and that they did business with the site.
States love to do this, they remove the mens rea (guilty mind) element so that you’re guilty regardless of your knowledge or intent.