[*]Associate, Kaye, Scholer, Fierman, Hays, and Handler, LLP., J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 2000, Lawrence University, 1991. The author would like to thank Professor Julie Cohen for her comments and assistance in the drafting of this note for her Cyberspace and the Law seminar.

[1] 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Supp. II 1996).

[2] See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (Supp. II 1996).

[3] See, e.g., Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997); Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp 44 (D.D.C. 1998).

[4] See, e.g., American Libraries Assoc. v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160, 161 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("Not surprisingly, much of the legal analysis of Internet-related issues has focused on seeking a familiar analogy for the unfamiliar.")

[5] See Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).

[6] Drudge, 992 F. Supp at 51.

[7] 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) (Supp. II 1996).

[8] 47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1) (Supp. II 1996).

[9] 23 Media L. Rep. at 1794.

[10] See S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, at 435 (1996)

[11] See 142 Cong. Rec. S8345.

[12] Stratton Oakmont, 23 Media L. Rep. at 1796.

[13] 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir. 1997).

[14] Id.

[15] Stratton Oakmont, 23 Media L. Rep. at 1795.

[16] Id. at 1796.

[17] See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 578, 581 (1976).

[18] Stratton Oakmont, 23 Media L. Rep. at 1796.

[19] 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

[20] Id. at 140.

[21]. See Stratton Oakmont, 23 Media L. Rep. at 1797.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] See, e.g., Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 342-43 (1964).

[26] 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(4) (Supp. II 1996).

[27] 141 Cong. Rec. S1953 (daily ed. Feb. 1, 1995) (statement of Sen. Exon).

[28] Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 859 (1997) (summarizing 47 U.S.C. § 223(a) (Supp. III 1997) and overturning much of the CDA, except, among others, the "Good Samaritan" provisions).

[29] 47 U.S.C. § 223(d)(2) (Supp. III 1997).

[30] See 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) (Supp. II 1996).

[31] S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, at 435 (1996).

[32] 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(4)-(5) (Supp. II 1996).

[33] See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).

[34] Id.

[35] Id. at 329.

[36] Id.

[37] See W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 111 (5th ed. 1984).

[38] Id. at 774 (summarizing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 559 cmt. e (1977)).

[39] See Zeran, 129 F.3d at 330.

[40] Id. at 332.

[41] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577 (1976).

[42] Zeran, 129 F.3d at 332.

[43] See Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794, 1796 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995). See supra text accompanying notes 8-10.

[44] See Zeran, 129 F.3d at 328-29.

[45] See Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 47 (D.D.C. 1998).

[46] Id.

[47] Id.

[48] Id.

[49] Id. at 51.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] Id at 52.

[53] Id.

[54] Id.

[55] S. Conf. Rep. No. 104-230, at 435 (1996).

[56] Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 881-82 (1997).

[57] Id. at 882.

[58] 47 U.S.C. § 230(c) (Supp II 1996) (Immunity provision of CDA is entitled "Protection for 'Good Samaritan" blocking and screening of offensive material").

[59] Reno, 521 U.S. at 885.

[60] Id.

[61] Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 52-53 (D.D.C. 1998).

[62] Richard A. Epstein, Cases And Materials on Torts 1066 (5th ed. 1990).

[63] See Reno, 521 U.S. at 870.

[64] See Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794, 1796 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).

[65] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 581 cmt. f (1976).

[66] Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, supra note 37, § 111, at 771 (citing Green, Rational Interests, 31 U. Ill.L.Rev. 35 (1936)).

[67] Id.

[68] Id. § 111, at 773 (citing Salmond, Law of Torts (8th ed., 1934)).

[69]. Id. § 111, at 775.

[70] Id. § 111, at 776.

[71] Id. § 111, at 780.

[72] Id.

[73] See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 558 (1976).

[74] Id.

[75] Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, supra note 36, § 113 at 810.

[76] Id.

[77] See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 581 cmt. d (1976).

[78] Id.

[79] Id.

[80] Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 23 Media L. Rep. 1794, 1798-99 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1995).

[81] Id. at 1797.

[82] Id.

[83] Id. at 1796.

[84] Id.

[85] Cf. Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 851 (1997).

[86] See Stratton Oakmont, 23 Media L. Rep. at 1796.

[87] Id.

[88] See Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 777 (1986).

[89] Zeran, 129 F.3d at 333.

[90] Rory Lancman, Protecting Speech from Private Abridgement: Introducing the Tort of Supression, 25 Sw. U.L. Rev. 223, 253-54 (1996).

[91] Id. at 224 n.7 (citing Harry Kalven, Jr., The Negro and the First Amendment 140 (1965)).

[92] Id.

[93] See Lawrence H. Eldredge, The Law of Defamation 2 (1978).

[94] Zeran, 129 F.3d at 329.

[95] See, e.g., MailAnon, (last modified Oct. 16, 1998) <http://www.mailanon.com>.

[96] See A. Michael Froomkin, The Internet as a Source of Regulatory Arbitrage, Borders in Cyberspace, Information Policy and the Global Infrastructure 129, 134-35 (Brian Kahin & Charles Neeson, eds., 1997).

[97] Id. at 140.

[98] See Alex Lash, Courts Block State Speech Laws, CNet.com, (last modified June 20, 1997) <;http://news.cnet.com/news/0-10005-200-319931.html>.

[99] ACLU v. Miller, 977 F. Supp 1228, 1230 (N.D.Ga. 1997).

[100] See Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 870 (1997) (striking down provisions of Communications Decency Act).

[101] See Miller, 977 F. Supp at 1230.

[102] Id. at 1236-37.

[103] See Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation, 17 U.S.C. § 512 (Supp. IV 1998).

[104] See 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(i)-(vi) (Supp. IV 1998).

[105] 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. IV 1998).

[106] See 17 U.S.C. § 512(d)(3) (Supp. IV 1998).

[107] 836 F.2d 1042 (7th Cir. 1987).

[108] Id. at 1047.

[109] Id.

[110]. Id. (Delco is a GM subsidiary).

[111] Id.

[112] See David R. Sheridan, Zeran v. AOL and the Effect of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act upon Liability for Defamation on the Internet, 61 Alb. L. Rev. 147, 177 (1997).

[113] Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 51 (D.D.C. 1998).

[114] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 581 cmt. d (1976).

[115] Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 333 (4th Cir. 1997).

[116] See AOL.com, Parental Controls, (visited April 19, 2000) <http://www.aol.com/ info/parentcontrol.html>.

[117] See, e.g., Sheridan, supra note 112.

[118] See New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S 254, 283-84 (1964).

[119] Id.

[120] See Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, supra note 37, § 119, at 805.

[121] Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 292.

[122] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580A cmt. a (1976).

[123] Cf. Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44 (D.D.C. 1998)

[124] See, e.g., Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767, 773 (1986).

[125] McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, 74 F.3d 1296, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

[126] See Elizabeth McNamara, Anke Steinecke, Teresa Scott & Gianna McCarthy, A Selective Survey of Current Issues Facing Book and Magazine Publishers, 516 PLI/Pat 9, 21 (1998).

[127] See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 332 (1974) ("[M]ere proof of failure to investigate, without more, cannot establish reckless disregard for the truth.").

[128] Id. (quoting St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 731 (1968)).

[129] See Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 157-158 (1967).

[130] Id. at 158.

[131] Drudge, 992 F. Supp. at 46.

[132] Robert M. O'Neil, The Drudge Case: A Look at Issues in Cyberspace Defamation, 73 Wash. L. Rev. 623, 623-24 (quoting Howard Kurtz, Cyber-Libel and the Web Gossip-Monger: Matt Drudge's Internet Rumors Spark Suit by White House, Washington Post, Aug. 15, 1997, at G1).

[133] See St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732 (1968).

[134] See, e.g., Cantrell v. Forest City Publishing Co, 419 U.S. 245 (1974).

[135] See, e.g., McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, 74 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

[136] Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 1350, 1375 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

[137] Id. at 1373 (quoting Tieberg v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 471 P.2d 975, 977 (1970)).

[138] Blumenthal v. Drudge, 992 F. Supp. 44, 47 (D.D.C. 1998).

[139] See Masson, 832 F. Supp. at 1374-75.

[140] Id.

[141] See Drudge, 992 F. Supp. at 51.

[142] See, e.g., Jeremy Stone Weber, Note, Defining Cyberlibel: A First Amendment Limit for Libel Suits Arising from Computer Bulletin Board Speech, 46 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 235 (1995).

[143] 418 U.S. 323, 351 (1974) (holding that the First Amendment prohibited strict liability for defamation published in the media regardless of the public or private status of the plaintiff).

[144] Id.

[145] Id.

[146] See Michael Hadley, Note, The Gertz Doctrine and Internet Defamation, 84 Va. L. Rev. 477, 478 (summarizing positions of those who favor this omni-public figure position).

[147] See Drudge Report, (visited April 19, 2000) <www.drudgereport.com/visits.htm> (18,087,987 hits from to 3/8/00 to 4/7/00).

[148] See Gertz, 418 U.S. at 344-45.

[149] See American Libraries Association v. Pataki, 969 F. Supp. 160, 164 (S.D.N.Y. 1997).

[150]. Id. at 169.

[151] Id. at 168-69.

[152] Id. at 182-83.

[153] Id. at 183-84.

[154] Id. at 184.

[155] See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 347 (1974).

[156] Id.

[157] Id. at 348.