jra at baylink.com
Sun Jan 22 16:08:06 CST 2012
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nick B" <nick at pelagiris.org>
> I'm about 90% sure that in a fair court, it would be concluded that
> disabling the reported URL qualifies as disabling access to the
> The court might then issue an injunction to, in the future, disable
> *all* *possible* access to the material, but that's not the current text of
> the law. YMMV
I believe we're all conflating 2 separate and, really, disparate things:
1) what does the law actually require and is that realistic?
2) how were MU actually behaving, and does that relieve The Law of cutting
them any slack?
The former isn't really affected by the latter; it can still be unreasonable,
even if that is *not* the reason why MU proper won't be getting cut any
slack which might exist.
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
More information about the NANOG