What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

Sat Feb 28 04:23:47 UTC 2015

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:49 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at 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