> 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 a

> 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."