I am sure The Gibson guitar company thought the same thing about the EPA. At least we can be sure that a TLA govt agency wouldn't be used to harass an administration's political opponents, right?
On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: > >> 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 >
