Internet jurisdiction, as written by Zittrain in Internet Jurisdiction, is extraordinarily difficult to handle and define due to the fluid geographical nature of the internet. While I recognize that much of the Internet jurisdiction cases must be handled on a case by case basis, the ruling made in the Young v New Haven Advocate case made me question some of the ways in which these cases are decided. I agree with the decision that the judges made stating that the state of Virginia does not have personal jurisdiction over the Connecticut newspapers because the newspaper reporters in Connecticut did not "manifest an intent to aim their websites or the posted articles at a Virginia audience." What interests me most about this decision is how fluid and subjective this precedent can become in the future and how Internet jurisdiction cases will highlight the differences between state statutes and manners of prosecution.

Personal jurisdiction of the Connecticut newspapers in this case was relatively clear cut; as stated in the court syllabus, the main subscribers to the newspapers lived in Connecticut, and some of the material published in the newspapers was published online. Because the main audience of the newspapers are residents of Connecticut and has probably stayed this way for a long period of time, it would make sense that the news reporters were writing to inform the Connecticut audience that has long followed these newspapers. In addition, the websites where the articles were published were focused on the interests of a Connecticut audience. However, as clear as this decision was, how will it be affected when/if newspapers are published completely online or have the same material on and offline? I can't imagine judges will ever have as easy of a time figuring out whether or not a victim has jurisdiction to prosecute his offender. As broad as this following statement sounds, my natural instinct is to say that the victim is the one with the most say in determining personal jurisdiction (in this case, if it were to have been decided that Young was indeed able to seek redress from the CT newspapers, then the CT newspapers would be tried in VA courts according to VA laws), and that seems to be the most fair way of handling these jurisdiction cases. What further interests me and seems to be an implication of these personal jurisdiction cases is the manner in which state statutes will have to in the future mesh together in order to prosecute individuals. As stated on pg. 32 of Internet Jurisdiction, "our nation is too big and too diverse" for all states to have the exact same statutes to handle and prosecute cases, such as child pornography or illegal immigration, due to the differing cultures of each state. With the growing number of personal jurisdiction issues, I believe that every state will sonner or later be forced to acclimate towards each others' statutes and methods of prosecutions in order to try individual fairly and equally across all states.