It appears that William Herrin via NANOG <[email protected]> said: >On Thu, May 29, 2025 at 10:57 AM Andrew Kirch <[email protected]> wrote: >> (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 > >Hi Andrew, > >The key phrase here is "taken in good faith." After I've notified you >of an error, your action stops being good faith.
Uh, no. I have no duty to believe what you claim. Having looked at a lot of case law I can tell you that the only case where a court did not find good faith was a strange one where one anti-malware service listed another (for what looked like good reasons) and a court assumed that since they were direct competitors it wasn't good faith. Other than that, if I think your traffic is objectionable, I can reject it. See https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/06/this-case-keeps-wrecking-internet-law-enigma-v-malwarebytes.htm In practice, threatening to sue Amazon is a dumb thing to do because they have far more lawyers and experience and money than you do. This is obviously a screwup and figuring out who to ask nicely is far more likely to work than sending threats you can't actually carry out. R's, John PS: Wasn't the original question from someone in South Africa? I have no idea what their law is like, or if Amazon even has enough presence there to sue. _______________________________________________ NANOG mailing list https://lists.nanog.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/QGOVMLWJ36MZ3V5PZAZK3DH3PQKBRN5W/
