What is lawful content? [was VZ...]

[owen at delong.com (Owen DeLong)]

> On Feb 27, 2015, at 15:49 , Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net> wrote:
>> Things like KP are obvious. Things like "adult" content here in the US are, for better or worse, also obvious (legal, in case you were wondering).
> 
> I would prefer they replace use of the phrase "lawful internet
> traffic";   with   "Internet traffic not prohibited by law  and not
> related to a source, destination, or type of traffic prohibited
> specifically by provider's conspiciously published terms of service."
> 
> The use of the phrase "LAWFUL"  introduces ambiguity,  since any
> traffic not specifically authorized by law could be said to be
> unlawful.

Since we are talking about US law, you are not correct.

Anything not specifically prohibited by law in the US is lawful.

> Something neither prohibited nor stated to be allowed by law is by
> definition.... Unlawful as wellâ?¦.

Sorry, but no, thatâ??s simply not accurate in the united states as legal terminology applies: