nanog mailing list archives
Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 12:43:33 -0600 (CST)
From owner-nanog () merit edu Tue Mar 22 11:38:22 2005 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:33:44 -0800 (PST) From: Bill Woodcock <woody () pch net> To: Richard Irving <rirving () antient org> Cc: Roy <garlic () garlic com>, "Fergie (Paul Ferguson)" <fergdawg () netzero net>, nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill > > It's also voluntary on the part of the service provider. > What !?! Surely you Jest! Uh, yes, I was joking. Unfortunately, I do believe, on credible evidence, that there are people stupid enough to be trying to legislate the operation of the Internet without having first understood how it's done right now. Case in point.
You may have _thought_ you were making a wry joke. I'm *NOT* so sure. "Can"/"may", and "shall"/"will" _are_ "terms of legal art", with precise _legal_ meanings, Notably, the former terms denote "discretionary" actions, while the latter ones denote "mandatory" actions. The RFC 'conventional' usage derives from the _legal_ meanings of those terms. The Utah statute is "bad law", and is _highly_unlikely_ to withstand a Constitutional challenge. Because it is the _government_ that is compiling, maintaining, and distributing the "banned" list. The "chilling effect" on 'free speech' argument is nearly certain to succeed. That _aside_, the "may not" language, as opposed to "shall not", looks like a *major* goof on the part of those who drafted the legislation. One might argue that the 'legislative intent' was to make the action mandatory on the part of the service provider, but that would be a *difficult* 'sell' to the courts - considering the *long* history of the distinct, disjoint, meanings of can/may and shall/will. For any potentially affected provider, it is *definitely* worth running the idea past one's professional legal counsel -- "if the law says we 'may not' do this, does that mean it is at our option, or is it mandatory?"
Current thread:
- RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill, (continued)
- RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Kathryn Kessey (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Paul G (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Rachael Treu (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Christopher Woodfield (Mar 23)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Chris Kuethe (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Will Yardley (Mar 22)
- Message not available
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Paul G (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 22)
- RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Dan Hollis (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Simon Waters (Mar 23)
- RE: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Kathryn Kessey (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Robert Bonomi (Mar 22)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill David Barak (Mar 23)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill William Allen Simpson (Mar 23)
- Message not available
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Jay R. Ashworth (Mar 24)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill William Allen Simpson (Mar 23)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Steven J. Sobol (Mar 23)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Michael . Dillon (Mar 24)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Mar 24)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill William Allen Simpson (Mar 24)
- Re: Utah governor signs Net-porn bill Richard Irving (Mar 24)