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

Publication Date


Document Type


Place of Original Publication

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment Law & Practice

Publication Information

3 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment Law & Practice 70 (2001)


COinS Raymond Shih Ray Ku Faculty Bio