It appears that William Herrin via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> said:
On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:57 AM Andrew Kirch <trelane@trelane.net> wrote:
(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
Hi Andrew,
The key phrase here is "taken in good faith." After I've notified you of an error, your action stops being good faith.
Uh, no. I have no duty to believe what you claim. Having looked at a lot of case law I can tell you that the only case where a court did not find good faith was a strange one where one anti-malware service listed another (for what looked like good reasons) and a court assumed that since they were direct competitors it wasn't good faith. Other than that, if I think your traffic is objectionable, I can reject it. See https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/06/this-case-keeps-wrecking-inter... In practice, threatening to sue Amazon is a dumb thing to do because they have far more lawyers and experience and money than you do. This is obviously a screwup and figuring out who to ask nicely is far more likely to work than sending threats you can't actually carry out. R's, John PS: Wasn't the original question from someone in South Africa? I have no idea what their law is like, or if Amazon even has enough presence there to sue.