What can ISPs do better? Removing racism out of internet

Wed Aug 7 04:40:10 UTC 2019

In article <56CBB25E-9A53-4E5E-B2CB-3E769112F516 at truenet.com> you write:
>John,
>
>Seriously, just quote so people don’t have to look it up.  Honestly, though others are probably right in that case law usually will over-ride written law due
>to our legal structure.

Well, kind of, but in this particular case they're well aligned.

>> ISPs are probably protected by 47 USC 230(c)(1) but all of the case
>> law I know is related to web sites or hosting providers.
>
>[ (1)Treatment of publisher or speaker
> No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content
>provider. ]
>
>Sounds great on paper, but sort of caught backpage in a quondam, perhaps because they installed filters to begin with.

Keep reading and look at 47 USC 230(c)(2).

 No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held
 liable on account of— 

 (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; ...

Courts have construed "otherwise objectionable" very broadly.  It
includes spam filtering.

The section Mel has been trying to interpret is different, 17 USC
512(a) which says that if you're carrying traffic in a mechanical way
(defined in more detail, see the statute) you're not responsible for
copyright violations.  This is not even sort of like being a common
carrier, of course.

>Technically, will anyone else booting customer’s for any offense of TOS be similar is still up for grabs, since it’s basically a political nightmare for
>lawyers right now.

No, really, it's not.  ISPs and CDNs don't have to provide service to
anyone.  I suppose a lawyer could make a case if a provider refused to
provide service to members of a protected class ("we don't serve black
people") but the kind of people you find on 8chan aren't a protected
class.

R's,
John