Abstract
Both fans and foes of Zeran v. America Online, Inc. (4th Cir. 1997) assume that its interpretation of §230 changed the scope of liability for ISPs under the common law republication rule. Many commentators believe Zeran “saved the internet” by enabling ISPs to permit unfiltered speech. But others argue Zeran misinterpreted §230, which was intended to encourage ISPs to filter speech. I think Zeran reached the right result, whatever Congress intended §230 to accomplish, because AOL wasn’t liable under the common law rule, either.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Specialist publication | The Recorder |
| State | Published - Nov 10 2017 |