3 ms·

>"lawful content" Yeah. It's in there so that courts can order sites blocked... not the FCC. > What words will I be disallowed from using to keep a website on

>"lawful content" Yeah. It's in there so that courts can order sites blocked... not the FCC. > What words will I be disallowed from using to keep a website online? What speech will I need to silence? This boogieman comes from part of the DMCA '96 that was struck down by the courts. > Will this be similar to free speech zones? Will I be allowed to run a webserver as long as I put up certain warnings/guarantees? Or carry a specific type of rating in a revamped website rating system? Er.. truly doubt it. Do you have to put up certain warnings/guarantees when you make phone calls, or carry a rating on your personal phone number? > Will my ISP be required to perform packet reconstruction to analyze my content to decide whether it should be given a pass or not? In fact, the courts have decided that this is illegal (in the context of the telephone) without a warrant. Phone company thought a customer was doing something shady because of their usage patterns and cut them off. Turns out he wasn't doing anything shady, and the courts ordered his phone service restored. > My fellow tax payers and I will all foot the bill. Hmm.. FCC's budget for FY 2011 was $336.8 million ... FY2011 expenditures for the federal government was $3.603 trillion ... so, you're up in arms about 0.009% of your taxes?

dragonwriter 12y ago
A prohibition on blocking lawful content doesn't create any new authority for anyone -- courts or FCC -- to order sites/content blocked, it just doesn't take away ISPs ability, which exists in the absence of regulation, to block unlawful content, whether on their own initiative or pursuant to an order from some entity with preexisting authority to order the content blocked.
- warfangle 12y ago
  > it just doesn't take away ISPs ability, which exists in the absence of regulation, to block unlawful content, whether on their own initiative or pursuant to an order from some entity with preexisting authority to order the content blocked. Their ability to block unlawful content on their own initiative would be restricted as a Title II common carrier. It would have to be ordered by the courts. They can't terminate based on suspicion of unlawful use; there must be evidence: * Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." * Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." They are not authorized to collect said evidence themselves; that lies with law enforcement: * People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."

dragonwriter 12y ago

A prohibition on blocking lawful content doesn't create any new authority for anyone -- courts or FCC -- to order sites/content blocked, it just doesn't take away ISPs ability, which exists in the absence of regulation, to block unlawful content, whether on their own initiative or pursuant to an order from some entity with preexisting authority to order the content blocked.

warfangle 12y ago
> it just doesn't take away ISPs ability, which exists in the absence of regulation, to block unlawful content, whether on their own initiative or pursuant to an order from some entity with preexisting authority to order the content blocked. Their ability to block unlawful content on their own initiative would be restricted as a Title II common carrier. It would have to be ordered by the courts. They can't terminate based on suspicion of unlawful use; there must be evidence: * Shillitani v. Valentine, 53 NYS 2d 127 (1945); "a telephone company may not refuse to furnish service and facilities because of a mere suspicion or mere belief that they may be or are being used for an illegitimate end; more is required." * Nadel v NY Tel., 170 NYS2d 95 (1957); carrier suspected caller of using the telephone for illegal gambling transactions and terminated their service. Court ruled that service should be reinstated: the telephone company "is not at all qualified, in the absence of evidence of illegal use, to withhold from the petitioner, at will an essential and public utility." They are not authorized to collect said evidence themselves; that lies with law enforcement: * People v. Brophy, 49 Cal.App.2d 15, at 33, 120 P2d 946, at 965; "public utilities and common carriers are not the censors of public or private morals, nor are they authorized or required to investigate or regulate the public or private conduct of those who seek service at their hands."