[SkyBelow]

I think the claim is that anything clearly legal is allowed. The problem is how iffy 'clearly' legal is. First, which country's law are we using? Second, which court rulings are we applying? Anything controversial ceases to be clearly legal because the police can go after it. Even if a well funded defense will eventually win the case, it may be on appeals meaning that punishment for the content has already begun. Thus it becomes easy to justify anything controversial as not being fully legal.

And that's assuming they'll actually try to stick to their claim. I find that isn't the case when it is really put to the test.

[jodrellblank]

I get it, I was reading "police" too literally; police enforce the law, so how can you have only legal content and describe that as "not policing"? And if you have only legal content, of course you don't police it because that's redundant. "We don't filter the filtered water" you must because that's how you get filtered water, but you don't because you already have done so and it doesn't need doing again.

Un-moderated, or "we have no content policy or acceptable use policy separate from the law".