On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 12:34 PM John Levine via NANOG <nanog@lists.nanog.org> wrote:
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
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.
Hi John, That is correct as far as it goes. However, if I *tell you* that you're hurting me and your response is, "I don't believe you and I can't be bothered to check," you are acting in bad faith. That doesn't necessarily make it unlawful, but any protections you had based on "good faith" are out the window. That's how Cox got smacked around in their piracy lawsuit: they reacted to notification in bad faith. Remember, the whole argument I made hinges on the premise that OP believes that if he could just talk to a human being responsible for the blocking activity and make his case, that human being, upon checking and confirming his presented facts, would agree with him. If that doesn't hold, then neither does my argument. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin bill@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/