[178506] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: What is lawful content? [was VZ...]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Fri Feb 27 23:24:47 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbX5y5pH59UJcDbgjTPXdH+Sjxk9ZB78RBF1QDU8NvdN9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 20:23:47 -0800
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
> On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:49 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore =
<patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
>> 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).
>=20
> I would prefer they replace use of the phrase "lawful internet
> traffic"; with "Internet traffic not prohibited by law and not
> related to a source, destination, or type of traffic prohibited
> specifically by provider's conspiciously published terms of service."
>=20
> The use of the phrase "LAWFUL" introduces ambiguity, since any
> traffic not specifically authorized by law could be said to be
> unlawful.
Since we are talking about US law, you are not correct.
Anything not specifically prohibited by law in the US is lawful.
> Something neither prohibited nor stated to be allowed by law is by
> definition.... Unlawful as well=E2=80=A6.
Sorry, but no, that=E2=80=99s simply not accurate in the united states =
as legal terminology applies:
=46rom law.com <http://law.com/> (I=E2=80=99m too cheap to pay for a =
subscription to Black=E2=80=99s):
unlawful
adj. referring to any action which is in violation of a statute, federal =
or state constitution, or established legal precedents
Ergo, lawful would be anything which is not in violation of a statute, =
federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents.
Owen
