2 ms·
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
by 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 agoNot 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 agoI 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.