IMHO It is hard to justify: take down this content because I received a bad email.
You either ask the web content to be taken down because it is bad on its own merit, or you ask the mail server admins to not send such bad emails. To link the bad emails to a website needs a bit more work to prove a definitive relationship. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Bill Cole < mailop-20160...@billmail.scconsult.com> wrote: > On 6 Sep 2016, at 1:04, Aaron C. de Bruyn wrote: > > Anyways, I thought there was a court case back in mid-90s where Compuserve >> or Prodigy or something was ruled to not be responsible for content >> flowing >> through their networks as they are simply the conduit. >> > > Cubby v. CompuServe and Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy are probably what you > half-recall. > They were nuanced enough (or if you prefer: contradictory enough) that > Congress felt compelled to pass a series of not-very-good laws like CDA, > COPA, COPPA, CIPA, DMCA, and CAN-SPAM to clarify. Yeah, not so much... > > Anyway, I'm no lawyer and so can't give legal advice (but – funny story – > I was very briefly sued for supposedly doing so) so take this for what it's > worth. Note that those 2 cases were civil defamation suits because under US > law it is really rather hard to publish anything in any medium that runs > afoul of criminal law to a degree that the government will act. So when > talking about legalities related to spam you're discussing mostly civil > fraud or libel, both of which demand a specific victim with real damages. > > In short: US case law and US statutory law are both essentially > irrelevant. It is not a question of whether CloudFlare is on sound legal > ground under US law, it's a question of whether they are wrong in their > actions. If you can't see the difference there, I can't help. > > Wouldn't that apply >> to something like CloudFlare? >> > > CloudFlare seems to be architected to assure that their services present > jurisdictional challenges, so that's a layered question, but let's > stipulate that CloudFlare is always entirely under US jurisdiction. > > The situation left by the two cited cases was a big fat headache. Prodigy > was liable, CompuServe not, and there was a rather subtle (or perverse, if > you prefer...) rationale for the difference. No higher court ever had a > chance to unify that subtlety or establish a clear rational standard. As a > result, later statutes almost all provided "safe harbor" provisions for > ISPs that didn't quite make them common carriers (which they didn't > actually want) but also gave them easy ways to avoid liability by acting in > "good faith." Eventual case law has essentially made those provisions > accessible to anyone providing any sort of service online. THOSE are the > legal details that really protect a hypothetical CloudFlare that is fully > under US jurisdiction. > > Note that this is also why mail system operators in the US can't be > legally held to any sort of performance standard for mitigating the flow of > spam through their systems as long as they don't overtly promote or protect > blatantly illegal spam. I expect all the mailops who claim "you can't avoid > sending out SOME spam" are glad for that protection. > > > _______________________________________________ > mailop mailing list > mailop@mailop.org > https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop >
_______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://chilli.nosignal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mailop
