more on ICANN ordered by Illinois court to suspend spamhaus.org
David Farber <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.culture.people.interesting-people |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Begin forwarded message: From: Bryan Webb <[email protected]> Date: October 11, 2006 9:59:17 PM EDT To: [email protected] Subject: [IP] more on ICANN ordered by Illinois court to suspend spamhaus.org Dave, For IP, if you wish... Thanks for publishing Prof. Ezor's response. I found his reference to 47 USC 230 ("Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material") most interesting. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode47/ usc_sec_47_00000230----000-.html By my reading of it, DNS is an "Interactive Computer Service", and SpanHAUS, ICANN, and TuCOWS are "Information Content Providers". 47 USC 230 (c) says (c) "Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material" (1) "Treatment of publisher or speaker" No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. (2) "Civil liability" 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; or (B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1). If we agree that spam and UCE are "otherwise objectionable", then the filtering actions of ISPs generally is protected and unactionable under the law, and SpamHAUS is specifically protected by subpart (B). SpamHAUS wouldn't exist and it would surely not be so popular if spam and UCE were not objectionable. While the law is geared toward restricting access to material inappropriate to minors, it does appear to be broad enough to encompass protections for SpamHAUS and ICANN, and probably the other registries. --Bryan Webb This is not an automated signature. I type this at the bottom of every message.