This Article argues that under the CDA and OCILLA, Congress adopted facially inconsistent approaches towards ISP liability for expression. Nonetheless, despite the overt differences, it is possible to discern an underlying principle for determining when ISPs should be considered speakers that reconciles this inconsistency. Put simply, the CDA and OCILLA support an approach toward determining when ISPs are speakers that focuses on whether an ISP exercises editorial control over its network. This approach is evidenced by the fact that both statutes recognize that ISPs are able to exercise editorial control over any and all content on their networks, and both encourage the exercise of that control in one form or another.
Intenet Service Providers
Place of Original Publication
Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment Law & Practice
3 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment Law & Practice 70 (2001)
Ku, Raymond Shih Ray, "Irreconcilable Differences: Congressional Treatment of Internet Service Providers as Speakers" (2001). Faculty Publications. 215.