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