On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:49 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick@ianai.net> wrote:
Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).
I would prefer they replace use of the phrase "lawful internet traffic"; with "Internet traffic not prohibited by law and not related to a source, destination, or type of traffic prohibited specifically by provider's conspiciously published terms of service."
The use of the phrase "LAWFUL" introduces ambiguity, since any traffic not specifically authorized by law could be said to be unlawful.
Since we are talking about US law, you are not correct. Anything not specifically prohibited by law in the US is lawful.
Something neither prohibited nor stated to be allowed by law is by definition.... Unlawful as well….
Sorry, but no, that’s simply not accurate in the united states as legal terminology applies: From law.com <http://law.com/> (I’m too cheap to pay for a subscription to Black’s): unlawful adj. referring to any action which is in violation of a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents Ergo, lawful would be anything which is not in violation of a statute, federal or state constitution, or established legal precedents. Owen