4 ms·

This gets brought up on HN whenever these rules get mentioned. The point is that the FCC cannot stop ISPs from blocking unlawful content. If an ISP is under som

This gets brought up on HN whenever these rules get mentioned. The point is that the FCC cannot stop ISPs from blocking unlawful content. If an ISP is under some other obligation to block unlawful content these FCC rules cannot overrule that. That's really all that's going on. By using the term 'lawful content' the FCC is limiting the scope of their rules, nothing more.

wnevets 12y ago
Your post makes sense and I don't wanna make it sound like I'm disagreeing with you but can't this be used as a launching point by congress to start deeming new internet content as unlawful?
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Congress does not need a launching point from the FCC; Congress can pass whatever law they want, whenever they want. It might later be found to be unconstitutional, but until then it will be the law. Congress can overrule the FCC; the FCC cannot overrule Congress. That's why the "lawful" language in FCC rules does not matter much.
  - sigzero 12y ago
    Exactly right.
- smutticus 12y ago
  snowwrestler gets it right, but imagine if the FCC didn't have this language? What would happen if Congress or the courts ruled traffic as unlawful and mandated ISPs to block it? The ISPs would be stuck in a jam. Either they run afoul of the FCC by blocking it, or they could run afoul of some court by not blocking it. We need clear rules. With the exception of things like TV and radio, there's little precendent for the FCC telling operators what they can rebroadcast. This 'unlawful' language is the FCC's way of not addressing the issue at all. They're not defining what 'unlawful' means intentionally because it's not part of their Congressional mandate.
  - GauntletWizard 12y ago
    The federal divisions are supposed to fight. That is the point of balance of power. A unified government is a tyrannous one.
    - rhino369 12y ago
      Be on the wrong side of the law no matter what is not freedom it is tyranny.
- mattybrennan 12y ago
  It's the other way around. Not having this language would give courts a good reason overturn the rule.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Your post makes sense and I don't wanna make it sound like I'm disagreeing with you but can't this be used as a launching point by congress to start deeming new internet content as unlawful? Insofar as Congress power under the Constitution to pass laws declaring material (whether or not it is on the internet) unlawful, this regulatory action neither expands nor constrains that power. And, in fact, Congress has plenty of laws in place which make content (including internet content) unlawful. All this does is applies non-blocking and other rules which do not apply to any content which is unlawful. It doesn't, in any way, effect what content is unlawful, or what content might become unlawful in the future.

wnevets 12y ago

Your post makes sense and I don't wanna make it sound like I'm disagreeing with you but can't this be used as a launching point by congress to start deeming new internet content as unlawful?

snowwrestler 12y ago
Congress does not need a launching point from the FCC; Congress can pass whatever law they want, whenever they want. It might later be found to be unconstitutional, but until then it will be the law. Congress can overrule the FCC; the FCC cannot overrule Congress. That's why the "lawful" language in FCC rules does not matter much.
- sigzero 12y ago
  Exactly right.
smutticus 12y ago
snowwrestler gets it right, but imagine if the FCC didn't have this language? What would happen if Congress or the courts ruled traffic as unlawful and mandated ISPs to block it? The ISPs would be stuck in a jam. Either they run afoul of the FCC by blocking it, or they could run afoul of some court by not blocking it. We need clear rules. With the exception of things like TV and radio, there's little precendent for the FCC telling operators what they can rebroadcast. This 'unlawful' language is the FCC's way of not addressing the issue at all. They're not defining what 'unlawful' means intentionally because it's not part of their Congressional mandate.
- GauntletWizard 12y ago
  The federal divisions are supposed to fight. That is the point of balance of power. A unified government is a tyrannous one.
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Be on the wrong side of the law no matter what is not freedom it is tyranny.
mattybrennan 12y ago
It's the other way around. Not having this language would give courts a good reason overturn the rule.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Your post makes sense and I don't wanna make it sound like I'm disagreeing with you but can't this be used as a launching point by congress to start deeming new internet content as unlawful? Insofar as Congress power under the Constitution to pass laws declaring material (whether or not it is on the internet) unlawful, this regulatory action neither expands nor constrains that power. And, in fact, Congress has plenty of laws in place which make content (including internet content) unlawful. All this does is applies non-blocking and other rules which do not apply to any content which is unlawful. It doesn't, in any way, effect what content is unlawful, or what content might become unlawful in the future.