4 ms·

Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"

by pyre 12y ago

oconnore 12y ago
If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.
- davorak 12y ago
  The main concern seemed to be weather or not it was on the burden of the state to prove illegal content before blocking or if it was on the user to prove their content is legal to prevent blocking.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    Not sure why it would be different in this case - the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise.
    - davorak 12y ago
      > the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise. Sure but if the law is vague than the enforcement can be broad or narrow depending on case law and the interpretation of judges. It is less risky to run a business in an area where the law is more clear cut.
  - Retra 12y ago
    I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. They're the ones doing the blocking, and if they block the wrong stuff, they're the ones going to court.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. More likely, it would be their burden to do so after blocking, when a violation of the no-blocking-lawful-content rule was alleged.
- pyre 12y ago
  Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)? I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    Since regulation would apply to mobile data, traffic to the Uber app could be blocked.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content If Uber's service is illegal, the content the site is delivering, insofar as it is solicitation to engage in an illegal exchange, may also be illegal.
    - pyre 12y ago
      This sounds like trying to make it illegal for Uber to own a telephone number because they are operating an illegal taxi service. It doesn't make sense. Go after the company in court, don't attempt to find ways around the court system.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?" It means that actually blocking, throttling, (or, for that matter, paid prioritization, though that will fall afoul of other laws) of unlawful content is not a violation of this particular set of FCC rules. It has no effect (positive or negative) on the pre-existing ability of ISPs, with or without a third-party request, to block unlawful content. Of course, because it is a federal rule, any local request seeking to block unlawful content that would also (or actually) block lawful content would be preempted by the federal rule prohibiting blocking lawful content, so it would constrain the kinds of actions that could be taken in pursuit of blocking unlawful content. But, in any case, any ability cities would have under this rule to request blocking Uber, etc., would be no more ability than they have without the rule.
- geofft 12y ago
  I had trouble understanding this comment at first, I think you're comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "no net neutrality required by law" (i.e., status quo), whereas the comment thread is, I think, comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "net neutrality under an even stronger rule that does not have an exception for unlawful content". That said, I'm really curious how preemption plays into this. For instance, if federal law is silent on the selling of some particular thing, and local law says that selling that thing is a crime, and there's a federal law that e.g. makes it a crime to interfere with "lawful" interstate commerce, and I interfere with you selling that thing, did I commit a federal crime? I can see arguments both ways that make sense to me as a layman, but I'm sure there's a standard answer to this.
djur 12y ago
Probably not. It would be an exceptional deviation from existing understanding of the First Amendment, to put it lightly. The cases where blocking speech is permitted in the US involve distributing material that is illegal to possess or distribute (stuff distributed in violation of copyright, for instance). In the case of Uber, what might be illegal is purchasing service from them (or them selling it to you). Them telling you about their service, even if it's illegal in your jurisdiction, is protected speech. Cannabis is currently illegal to possess or purchase in my state (although not for long). It's still legal for me to read High Times or websites selling commercial products that are legal in Colorado. It'd be illegal for me to place an order. (And if it's permitted under the proposed regulatory environment, it's probably permitted now, too.)

Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"

by pyre 12y ago

Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?"

oconnore 12y ago

If a federal/state/local government declares something illegal, they can shut it down within their jurisdiction. There is no "I'm on the internet so you can't enforce laws" get out of jail free card.

davorak 12y ago
The main concern seemed to be weather or not it was on the burden of the state to prove illegal content before blocking or if it was on the user to prove their content is legal to prevent blocking.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Not sure why it would be different in this case - the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise.
  - davorak 12y ago
    > the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise. Sure but if the law is vague than the enforcement can be broad or narrow depending on case law and the interpretation of judges. It is less risky to run a business in an area where the law is more clear cut.
- Retra 12y ago
  I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. They're the ones doing the blocking, and if they block the wrong stuff, they're the ones going to court.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. More likely, it would be their burden to do so after blocking, when a violation of the no-blocking-lawful-content rule was alleged.
pyre 12y ago
Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)? I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.
- walterbell 12y ago
  Since regulation would apply to mobile data, traffic to the Uber app could be blocked.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content If Uber's service is illegal, the content the site is delivering, insofar as it is solicitation to engage in an illegal exchange, may also be illegal.
  - pyre 12y ago
    This sounds like trying to make it illegal for Uber to own a telephone number because they are operating an illegal taxi service. It doesn't make sense. Go after the company in court, don't attempt to find ways around the court system.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Does this mean that (e.g.) specific cities can petition ISPs to block (e.g.) Uber in their area because it's not "lawful?" It means that actually blocking, throttling, (or, for that matter, paid prioritization, though that will fall afoul of other laws) of unlawful content is not a violation of this particular set of FCC rules. It has no effect (positive or negative) on the pre-existing ability of ISPs, with or without a third-party request, to block unlawful content. Of course, because it is a federal rule, any local request seeking to block unlawful content that would also (or actually) block lawful content would be preempted by the federal rule prohibiting blocking lawful content, so it would constrain the kinds of actions that could be taken in pursuit of blocking unlawful content. But, in any case, any ability cities would have under this rule to request blocking Uber, etc., would be no more ability than they have without the rule.

geofft 12y ago
I had trouble understanding this comment at first, I think you're comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "no net neutrality required by law" (i.e., status quo), whereas the comment thread is, I think, comparing "net neutrality under this rule" with "net neutrality under an even stronger rule that does not have an exception for unlawful content". That said, I'm really curious how preemption plays into this. For instance, if federal law is silent on the selling of some particular thing, and local law says that selling that thing is a crime, and there's a federal law that e.g. makes it a crime to interfere with "lawful" interstate commerce, and I interfere with you selling that thing, did I commit a federal crime? I can see arguments both ways that make sense to me as a layman, but I'm sure there's a standard answer to this.

djur 12y ago

Probably not. It would be an exceptional deviation from existing understanding of the First Amendment, to put it lightly. The cases where blocking speech is permitted in the US involve distributing material that is illegal to possess or distribute (stuff distributed in violation of copyright, for instance). In the case of Uber, what might be illegal is purchasing service from them (or them selling it to you). Them telling you about their service, even if it's illegal in your jurisdiction, is protected speech. Cannabis is currently illegal to possess or purchase in my state (although not for long). It's still legal for me to read High Times or websites selling commercial products that are legal in Colorado. It'd be illegal for me to place an order. (And if it's permitted under the proposed regulatory environment, it's probably permitted now, too.)