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

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.