[IP] Any lawyers :-) Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and st

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Stagg Newman <lsnewmanjr@yahoo.com>

Date: July 27, 2009 4:14:01 PM EDT

To: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>, dave@farber.net

Subject: Re: [IP] Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and  st

IANAL.  I do remember that part of the '96 Telecom Law dealing w/ restricting access

to obscene material was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

 

Do any of the lawyers on the list know if Section 230 is the part of the

act found unconstitutional?  And if so does that imply that Stratton Oakmont

v. Prodigy is still valid precendent.

 

--- On Mon, 7/27/09, David Farber <dave@farber.net> wrote:

From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: [IP] Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and st
To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Date: Monday, July 27, 2009, 9:42 AM

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Paul Levy" <plevy@citizen.org>

Date: July 27, 2009 8:13:03 AM EDT

To: "David Farber" <dave@farber.net>

Subject: Re: [IP] PLEASE NOTE MY COMMENT --  Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and  st

Although these issues are worth debating for policy reasons, the hint that by censoring traffic ATT risks being held liable for traffic it does not censor, by reference to Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy, does not suggest a realistic liability concern.  Congress overruled Stratton Oakmont in 1996 when it enacted 47 U.S.C. § 230, which specifically states, among other things, that

 

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;....

http://www4law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/230.html

 

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation

>>> David Farber <dave@farber.net> 7/27/2009 12:59 AM >>>

I  can not verify this , I use Comcast and it works there -- but it is widely reported on many sites such as http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/26/att-blocks-4chan-this-is-going-to-get-ugly/

Dave

Begin forwarded message:

From: jamie <j@arpa.com>

Date: July 26, 2009 10:32:21 PM EDT

To: Dave Farber <dave@farber.net>

Cc: Jamie Rishaw <j@arpa.com>

Subject: Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with smoking gun in hand (and  still in hand).

[ok to post/repost/edit for brevity]


Dave,

  It appears at AT&T (dial, DSL, black-label and my own home broadband service via u-verse product) has unilaterally and without explanation started blocking websites.

  I have confirmed this with multiple tests.  (It actually appears that these sites are being blocked at a local-global scale -- that is, each city/hub seems to have blackholes for the sites).

  The biggest one is "4chan.org"'s image server - img.4chan.  It's in Alexa's Top-1000 (#684).  Internet Route-servers on AT&T's network as traceroutes from various cities (including Chicago, St Louis, multiple sites in Northern and Southern California as well as NYC) indicate that the sites have been blackholed.

  And, annoyingly, this isn't the first time - they showed pro-Bush agenda just two years ago, censoring Pearl Jam anti-Bush-43 lyrics.

  Questions arise:

  -1- What to do? 
    - AT&T has no right to censor or limit anything, period. (IMHO) (IANAL) (etc)
    - I'm now paying ~$150/mo for service with TV & Internet subject to filtering without permission?

  -2- Is AT&T acting in a way that negates its 'Common Carrier' status?  

  -3- If AT&T is trying to "enforce" the CDA upon its subscribers' "eyeballs," doesnt it fall into the same dangerous ground that Prodigy did when it tried to police traffic?
  (Summary for the unfamiliar: The courts ruled that because Prodigy took a stance of monitoring (any) part of traffic, it was bound to "catch everything" and was thus no longer a carrier but a Publisher).  (Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy)


Comments/opinions/etc from you and readers appreciated.

TIA,

-Jamie Rishaw

Archives

Archives

Archives