> On Feb 27, 2015, at 16:09 , Jim Richardson <weaselkee...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patr...@ianai.net> wrote: >> Again, well settled. >> >> It is where the end user is viewing the content _and_ where the content is >> served. If a CDN, then each node which serves the traffic must be in a place >> where it is legal. There are CDNs which do not serve all customers from all >> nodes for exactly this reason. > > Does this mean that viewing say, cartoons of mohammed, may or may not > be 'illegal' for me to do, and result in my ISP being forced to block > traffic, depending on what origin and route they take to get to me? > > Are we going to have the fedgov trying to enforce other country's > censorship laws on us?
This is absurd. The source server is under the jurisdiction of the sovereigns in that location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the source server is carried out at the source by them. The recipient client is under the jurisdictions of the sovereigns in that location. Any enforcement of their laws upon the recipient is carried out there by them. In the case of a US ISP, their local jurisdiction should (though I haven’t read the detailed rules yet) be pre-empted from content based interference by the federal preemption rules and the applicability of Title II. Federal law would still, however, apply, and so an ISP would not be allowed to route traffic to/from a site which they have been notified through proper due process is violating US law. Beyond the borders of the US, the FCC has little or no ability to enforce anything. Owen
