Eric Smith wrote:
>
> Chris Kennedy <chris_at_mainecoon.com> wrote:
> > we've been told that deciding to accept or reject messages based on origin
> > compromises our common carrier status
>
> Possibly. But only if you actually have common carrier status, or can
> make a credible claim that you should. Have they passed any law granting
> such status to ISPs? I'd think that would be big news, and I haven't
> heard of it.
We and most other ISPs advance the argument that we are not responsible
for the content which passes through our infrastructure, arguing that
we are the bit-shipping analog to telcos -- and hence should have the
same indemnification from acts of our subscribers which might be
criminally or civilly actionable. Of course we add explicit indemnification
language to our subscription agreements as well.
Is there a legislative CC mandate? No. Has this argument been used
successfully in court? According to counsel, yes. Would
the argument be as effective if we demonstrate the ability to filter
objectionable material on behalf of our subscribers but without their
explicit direction or consent? Probably not, because the telcos
don't do so. I'm not sure that I completely subscribe to that position,
but we pay these people for their legal opinions because they're supposed
to know more about telecommunications law than we do.
--
Chris Kennedy
chris_at_mainecoon.com
http://www.mainecoon.com
PGP fingerprint: 4E99 10B6 7253 B048 6685 6CBC 55E1 20A3 108D AB97
Received on Thu Feb 24 2000 - 16:48:54 GMT