@Rtzq0 Fine, but make sure to specify that then.

@Rtzq0 I was clear in my toot that I was only talking about those in the US.

@nightpool *sigh* look there is no need to fight. I was simply pointing out that your presumption that mastodon admins are safe in the US due to US laws may be a cold comfort to those that are outside the US.

There are, I'm sure, many other laws that a sufficiently angry prosecutor could use to shut down instances. Probably COPPA, since I don't recall seeing an age check. But I doubt either of us is a Lawyer :)

@Rtzq0 COPPA does not include reporting requirements. if admins become aware of any users under 13, that's a different story. Also we're not operated for commercial purposes, so that's an automatic exemption.

IANAL. if you think you may end up in legal trouble, hire a lawyer.

@nightpool Per FTC v. California Dental Association, 526 U.S. 756 (1999) non-profit-ness is not a hard-and-fast exemption. But yes, people should look to real lawyers for real legal advice.

@nightpool counterpoint: centralized services will, if they perceive mastodon to actually be a threat, stoop to stuff like this to regulate decentralized services.

"We pay people to protect our users from toxicity, but nobody protects mastodon users!" may very well be used in court some day.

@mykola this is a criminal case, charges would have to be brought and it would have to be prosecuted by a DA.

this kind of logic would also open up liability to ANY isp who had a user that accessed pawoo, or even pixiv, so I find it REALLY hard to believe courts would go for it

@maliciarogue You'd really have to ask someone who was familiar with the laws of that jurisdiction. I'm getting my information from my own knowledge of US law, the things the EFF has written on the topic, and the positions of the CBLDF. Look for similar organizations in your jurisdiction that will help you find the right laws.

@nightpool because you think I am US-based? Also, my comment was ironic and asking you to remember that we, people outside of the US, exist. So, as much as your comment may be relevant to strictly US audience, I find it problematic with respect to, y'know, the rest of the world...

@nightpool other than that, I am well surrounded by the relevant people, hence my position.

@maliciarogue
what? No, I didn't think you were US based. Why would I assume that? My original toot SPECIFICALLY says that it was only related to people in the US. My followup toot said to ask people in *your* jurisdiction. In neither of those places did I assume that you were US-based. in fact, I assumed the exact opposite.

the only information I can find is that the EU also appears to have a similar shield law: Directive 2000/31/EC articles 14 and 15.

@maliciarogue If you're not in the EU, then you'll have to look further afield then me for information

@nightpool @maliciarogue wouldn't this be in the same vain as if you were the host of a download service provider? They're not responsible for what you download. It's not their fault if you go and download something illegal or pirated. Seems like I read that verbiage somewhere.

@churley79 again, depends on where you are. The US and EU have shield laws. I don't know about other jurisdictions

@ajroach42 In the EU, the Electronic Commerce Directive limits the liability of people who are merely caching content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive#Liability_of_intermediaries

IANAL. if you think you may run into legal issues, hire a lawyer, ask for a free consultation, look into the EFF intake process. But *don't* cause a panic by spreading FUD.

@nightpool Fair enough.

@nightpool @ajroach42 I love the fact that "IANAL" is an acronym that takes away all the seriousness in a message

@nightpool Rather: make 100% sure you're right about the state-level situation.

Also this is a VERY interesting discussion about defamation but discusses that clause of the CDA in great detail: http://www.socalinternetlawyer.com/defamation-internet-forums/

@nightpool If I'm reading this right:

As long as you don't participate in it, you SHOULD be kosher with the feds.

That's not saying anything about state authorities (who are allowed to regulate decency because... historical reasons). Check local laws. It all depends. Your state government might be cuckoo for cocoa puffs. Even if you win a legal challenge it's time wasted.

@Elizafox

IANAL either but my understanding of the situation is that the state authorities are allowed to regulate decency but they *aren't* allowed to consider people publishers when the law says they can't be.

That doesn't say that authorities *couldn't* prosecute, but I think you'd generally have good luck explaining the federated nature of mastodon to them. Tor looks much sketchier to authorities but they've had good success explaining it to prosecutors

@nightpool Probably.

That said.

There are other concerns.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/new-proposal-could-singlehandedly-cripple-free-speech-online?redirect=blog/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/new-proposal-could-singlehandedly-cripple

Now think about who's president...

@Elizafox yeah, for sure. Noone is safe, but people should stop spreading fear and panic about the way masto works.

@Elizafox @nightpool IANAL, but I do infosec for a living and reviewed 47USC230 with three cybersecurity lawyers in the last month due to a new legislative threat... it SPECIFICALLY prohibits the states from treating a service operator as the publisher of user content.

par (e)3 says in part "No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

@nightpool @Elizafox Oh, and there is case law to back it up. This isn't some untried grey area.

@intothemild that's why I specifically said "in the US" in my toot....

The EU has similar legal shields for intermediary, although I know less about them. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive#Liability_of_intermediaries

@lanodan_tmp that's why I said "in the US"?

anyway, the EU also has similar shield laws. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive#Liability_of_intermediaries

@surma @nolan The EU has similar shield laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive#Liability_of_intermediaries

I don't know the specific about how these are enacted into German law. I would try to see if there are any local EFF-like organizations that have an FAQ on the subject. let me know if you find anything!

@nightpool @surma Our server is located in the US; dunno what impact that has if any.

@nolan yeah I think it would only really depend on where the server and it's owner/operator was located.

@jjg from @mala on Github:

"b) In my experience, CP is a peculiar special case in most jurisdictions, but also very very rarely prosecuted in terms of simple caching. Law enforcement is aiming for a very particular set of cases in this area, and when they pursue someone who isn't a deliberate producer or disseminator, say a Tor provider, they do it by mistake -- and they're generally eager to correct the mistake."

@mala @jjg It's worth considering that cops and prosecutors are responding to their own set of incentives—they're trying to get cases that make themselves look good, ones that they think people will vote for them for, ones that they feel are morally just, etc. weird hacker anarchists on a social media platform are probably not that high on their list of targets.

@jjg @mala
copyright is.... another bundle of worms entirely. since its generally a civil action, and you're going up against a corporation with potentially deep pockets and a vested (if misguided) interested in taking you down.

@nightpool I will say that agree that just shutting every down is the best response. There are technological solutions to serving the need for caching while providing sysops plausible deniability. @mala

@nightpool @mala a few years ago I would have probably agreed with this, but after the president uses the term anarchist analogously with terrorist, we get more cautious :)

@jjg @nightpool I can't speak directly to this, but note my proviso later on: "(It's different when courts or law enforcement are aiming to arrest a person for other reasons, particularly in repressive jurisdictions)."

@mala yes, you have captured the essence of my concern. It's not uncommon for this sort of vulnerability to be exploited by law enforcement as part of a larger strategy. @nightpool

@jjg @nightpool i'd encourage you to talk to other hosts and organizers who share your politics -- about their strategies, and their risk assessments!

@dadegroot Right, but this isn't just a computer you own—it's a computer that's acting as a internet service provider. If this wasn't considered, then any random cable company could get sued for libel of defamation passing through their pipes. Much less obscenity, copyright, CP, etc

I don't know how this works in Australia—you should look for local software freedom organizations that might have an FAQ for your jurisdiction. But this is the key distinction in the EU and US laws

@nightpool IIRC here at least, you need a Carrier License to be classed as an ISP.

@dadegroot oh, sorry, isp in this case/in this law just means "anyone providing services on the internet".

@unorigmoniker that's why I was really careful in my toot to say "in the US". I'm not as familiar, but the EU has similar laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Commerce_Directive#Liability_of_intermediaries

IANAL. if you think you may run into legal issues, hire a lawyer, ask for a free consultation, look into the EFF intake process. But *don't* cause a panic by spreading FUD.

@nightpool I agree with you. I think the fear is a bit overblown whether you're in Paris, Ohio, or Paris, France.

@nightpool Intercourse, Pennsylvania, or Fucking, Austria. 😁

@unorigmoniker Egypt, Illinois or Egypt, Egypt