nanog mailing list archives

RE: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet


From: Tony Patti <tony () swalter com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:50:19 +0000

FYI, Bloomberg BusinessWeek published TODAY a 3,200-word article by Felix Gillette entitled

"Section 230 Was Supposed to Make the Internet a Better Place. It Failed"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-08-07/section-230-was-supposed-to-make-the-internet-a-better-place-it-failed

Tony Patti
[SW_logo_HighRes]<http://www.swalter.com/>
CIO

t: (215) 867-8401
f: (215) 268-7184
e: tony () swalter com<mailto:tony () swalter com>
w: www.swalter.com<http://www.swalter.com/>







-----Original Message-----
From: NANOG <nanog-bounces () nanog org> On Behalf Of Mel Beckman
Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 11:36 PM
To: John Levine <johnl () iecc com>
Cc: nanog () nanog org
Subject: Re: What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet



John,



Please reread my comments. I did not say “carriers” and specifically excluded the FCC’s definition. I said “Common 
Carriers”, as defined by Common Law. The DMCA asserts that they must operate as CCs under this definition: in order to 
get protection under Safe Harbor they must function as a “passive conduit” of information.



-mel via cell



On Aug 6, 2019, at 7:36 PM, John Levine <johnl () iecc com<mailto:johnl () iecc com>> wrote:



In article <6956E76B-E6B7-409F-A636-C7607BFD881C () beckman org<mailto:6956E76B-E6B7-409F-A636-C7607BFD881C () 
beckman org>> you write:

Mehmet,



I’m not sure if you understand the terms under which ISPs operate as “common carriers”, and thus enjoy immunity from 
lawsuits due to the acts of their customers.



ISPs in the U.S. are not carriers and never have been.  Even the ISPs

that are subsidaries of telcos, which are common carriers for their

telco operations, are not common carriers for their ISPs.



This should not come as surprise to anyone who's spent 15 minutes

looking at the relevant law.



ISPs are probably protected by 47 USC 230(c)(1) but all of the case

law I know is related to web sites or hosting providers.





Current thread: