RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

["Kuhtz, Christian" <christian.kuhtz () bellsouth com>]

> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:stephen () sprunk org]
[..]
> Common carrier status exists for this very reason.  Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see
> the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.

Come on, don't go lumping DoS and smut into the same basket.  You can't be
possibly serious about considering the two to be equals.

In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and blocking
DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable.  Excesses are rarely
protected by any legal statutes.

Thanks,
Christian



*****
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."