As between the innocent victim, who has no choice, and the intermediary who has a choice whether to accept anonymous communication, it would be preferable to hold the intermediary liable. Accordingly, I would favor an immunity for intermediaries but only as to non-anonymous messages or other items of information content. The principle is inconsistent with the rest of the draft. The law of most countries and international law provide for the possibility of law being applied to conduct outside the borders of the jurisdiction which enacted it when such conduct produces a harmful effect in the jurisdiction. The subject of choice of law in the Internet is extremely complex, and I object to taking a position on it when we never had a chance to consider it properly.
Choice of law is tricky in Cyberspace.
There is precedent for both approaches. The UN General Assembly resolution on direct broadcast television adopts the country of receipt approach, making the content legal if it is legal in the country of receipt, and presumably illegal according to the local law of the place of receipt as well. Neither of these approaches is perfect. In the long run, it would be better to harmonize content rules, and efforts should begin now to narrow differences on content regulation, recognizing a general preference in favor of freedom of expression, as noted in the principles.