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

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jonathan Ezor" <jezor@tourolaw.edu>
Date: July 27, 2009 5:34:24 PM EDT
To: <dave@farber.net>
Subject: RE: [IP] Any lawyers :-)   Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught  
with smoking gun in hand (and  st

47 USC 230 is still the law of the land; it's the provision of the CDA  
that
remained after the rest went away as unconstitutional. Given its  
protections
for service providers seeking to prevent "objectionable" content  
(which has
been interpreted by some courts to include spam, at least in some
situations), it's a fairly broad set of protections. {ProfJonathan}

-------------------
Prof. Jonathan I. Ezor
Assistant Professor of Law and Technology
Director, Institute for Business, Law and Technology (IBLT)
Touro Law Center
225 Eastview Drive, Central Islip, NY  11722
Direct: 631-761-7119  Fax: 516-977-3001
e-mail: jezor@tourolaw.edu
Skype: jonathanezor     Twitter: profjonathan
E-book on smartphone/laptop legal risk: http://www.mobilerisk.com


From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 5:20 PM
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Any lawyers :-) Net Neutrality redux : AT&T caught with  
smoking
gun in hand (and st



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.





-------------------------------------------