[javindo]

I can see some reasoning behind this, but the reasoning is that the emphasis of the problem is "people are angry at the site because something is blocked so let's show an error code reflecting the real reason." Using 451 would take the emphasis away from the site and onto the legal oppressor.

On the other hand, why not inverse all inaccessible content to legal oppressors? Change the default meaning of 403 for example to "Access denied for permissive or legal reasons".

[daveid]

Change the default meaning of 403? I don't think that's a good idea. When a user needs to be logged in to do something and they aren't, you show them 403. When access is restricted to people outside a network, they see 403. It'll be hard to force a new behaviour onto the existing web, easier to add a new HTTP code.

[RyanMcGreal]

My understanding is that the server should respond with 401 Unauthorized when someone is attempting to access a resource that requires authentication. What is the case for using 403 instead?

[daveid]

OK, 401 makes more sense in that context. But another 403 case would be "the authorized user lacks permission to open resource."

[gpvos]

When they have authenticated (logged on), but they still do not have access to that particular resource (but may have access to others).