The main concern seemed to be weather or not it was on the burden of the state to prove illegal content before blocking or if it was on the user to prove their content is legal to prevent blocking.

Not sure why it would be different in this case - the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise.

> the general common law rule is that doing a thing is de facto permitted unless a law says otherwise.

Sure but if the law is vague than the enforcement can be broad or narrow depending on case law and the interpretation of judges.

It is less risky to run a business in an area where the law is more clear cut.

I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking. They're the ones doing the blocking, and if they block the wrong stuff, they're the ones going to court.

> I imagine it would be the burden of the ISP to prove illegal content before blocking.

More likely, it would be their burden to do so after blocking, when a violation of the no-blocking-lawful-content rule was alleged.

Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content, so should the Uber site be shutdown or should they just be going after Uber via the courts (where a judge could order Uber to suspend operations)?

I was stating that you could see city government trying to get the Uber site blocked to local ISP customers as a way to side-step the court system.

> Well, the Uber site isn't distributing illegal content

If Uber's service is illegal, the content the site is delivering, insofar as it is solicitation to engage in an illegal exchange, may also be illegal.

This sounds like trying to make it illegal for Uber to own a telephone number because they are operating an illegal taxi service. It doesn't make sense. Go after the company in court, don't attempt to find ways around the court system.

Since regulation would apply to mobile data, traffic to the Uber app could be blocked.