It's not really clear, but if you read the attached material in their letter, there's kind of three things that stuck out to me: 1. The LCCRUL seems to have co

It's not really clear, but if you read the attached material in their letter, there's kind of three things that stuck out to me: 1. The LCCRUL seems to have contacted NS and complained about Stormfront. A NS representative initially claimed they would not do anything about Stormfront. 2. The LCCRUL seems to have pushed back with the argument that Stormfront was violating NS's own acceptable use policy and NS was not enforcing it. 3. NS's acceptable use policy explicitly states they can do what they did if it is violated. I'm not a lawyer, but one thing our organization has been told by lawyers (about totally different issues) is that violating your own policies is kind of setting yourself up in a major way for liability in certain situations. I'm not sure what that liability would be in this case, but you could speculate that it might be that NS could get sued for being arbitrary and capricious in enforcing certain acceptable use policies in other situations, or could be held liable for certain things resulting from Stormfront's activities. The general vibe I've gotten is that when it comes to liability, you shouldn't have internal policies you're not willing to enforce completely. From this perspective, NS's hands might have been tied by the policy they adopted more than anything else. The seizure part seems to stem naturally from them just following their policy.