Any lawyers :-) Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and st

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stagg Newman <lsnewmanjr () yahoo com>
Date: July 27, 2009 4:14:01 PM EDT
To: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>, dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun  
in hand (and  st

IANAL.  I do remember that part of the '96 Telecom Law dealing w/  
restricting access
to obscene material was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Do any of the lawyers on the list know if Section 230 is the part of the
act found unconstitutional?  And if so does that imply that Stratton  
Oakmont
v. Prodigy is still valid precendent.



--- On Mon, 7/27/09, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: [IP] Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in  
hand (and st
To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 9:42 AM



Begin forwarded message:

From: "Paul Levy" <plevy () citizen org>
Date: July 27, 2009 8:13:03 AM EDT
To: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] PLEASE NOTE MY COMMENT --  Net Neutrality redux :  
AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and  st

Although these issues are worth debating for policy reasons, the hint  
that by censoring traffic ATT risks being held liable for traffic it  
does not censor, by reference to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, does not  
suggest a realistic liability concern.  Congress overruled Stratton  
Oakmont in 1996 when it enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230, which specifically  
states, among other things, that

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held  
liable on account of-
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to  
or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be  
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or  
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is  
constitutionally protected;....
http://www4law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation

>>> David Farber <dave () farber net> 7/27/2009 12:59 AM >>>
I  can not verify this , I use Comcast and it works there -- but it is  
widely reported on many sites such as http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/

Dave

Begin forwarded message:

From: jamie <j () arpa com>
Date: July 26, 2009 10:32:21 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: Jamie Rishaw <j () arpa com>
Subject: Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand  
(and  still in hand).

[ok to post/repost/edit for brevity]


Dave,

  It appears at AT&T (dial, DSL, black-label and my own home  
broadband service via u-verse product) has unilaterally and without  
explanation started blocking websites.

  I have confirmed this with multiple tests.  (It actually appears  
that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is,  
each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).

  The biggest one is "4chan.org"'s image server - img.4chan.  It's in  
Alexa's Top-1000 (#684).  Internet Route-servers on AT&T's network as  
traceroutes from various cities (including Chicago, St Louis, multiple  
sites in Northern and Southern California as well as NYC) indicate  
that the sites have been blackholed.

  And, annoyingly, this isn't the first time - they showed pro-Bush  
agenda just two years ago, censoring Pearl Jam anti-Bush-43 lyrics.

  Questions arise:

  -1- What to do?
    - AT&T has no right to censor or limit anything, period. (IMHO)  
(IANAL) (etc)
    - I'm now paying ~$150/mo for service with TV & Internet subject  
to filtering without permission?

  -2- Is AT&T acting in a way that negates its 'Common Carrier' status?

  -3- If AT&T is trying to "enforce" the CDA upon its subscribers'  
"eyeballs," doesnt it fall into the same dangerous ground that Prodigy  
did when it tried to police traffic?
  (Summary for the unfamiliar: The courts ruled that because Prodigy  
took a stance of monitoring (any) part of traffic, it was bound to  
"catch everything" and was thus no longer a carrier but a Publisher).   
(Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy)


Comments/opinions/etc from you and readers appreciated.

TIA,

-Jamie Rishaw


Archives

Archives        




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com