[178470] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Feb 27 17:37:26 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <D1164EF6.F9D65%jason_livingood@cable.comcast.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 17:23:44 -0500
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I am not a lawyer (in fact, I Am Not An Isp), but my understanding is =
this is pretty well settled.
And it is not even weird or esoteric. If the content on the site is =
against the law in the jurisdiction in question, it is not legal (duh). =
Otherwise, yes it is, and no ISP gets to decide whether you can see it =
or not.
Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US =
are, for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were =
wondering).
Things like gambling are the question, as that changes per location.
A better question is: Can ISPs sell things like "filtering" services for =
a fee? Blocking is disallowed. But that is blocking by the ISP. =
Affirmative requests from the end user to block things are probably OK. =
But ... has anyone seen the actual rules?
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:46 , Livingood, Jason =
<Jason_Livingood@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>=20
> I=C4=85m not sure who gets to definitively answer the question (I =
would guess
> that case law will develop around it but IANAL), but this sort of =
caveat
> has been in the Open Internet rules for awhile. In general it means =
ISPs
> can=C4=85t block stuff like Facebook but have latitude to do stuff =
like block a
> site/IP address that may be the source of an attack, etc.
>=20
>=20
> - Jason
>=20
> On 2/27/15, 2:24 PM, "Bruce H McIntosh" <bhm@ufl.edu> wrote:
>>=20
>> On 2015-02-27 14:14, Jim Richardson wrote:
>>> What's a "lawful" web site?
>>>=20
>> Now *there* is a $64,000 question. Even more interesting is, "Who =
gets
>> to decide day to day the answer to that question?" :)
