We have seen that access to the Internet is increasingly being provided by a few larger companies, and when they do choose to remove certain speech, it is censorship, albeit not by the government. As long as alternative ISPs exist, then disgruntled users can just take their business to someone who is not so touchy. But if America Online someday controls most of the Internet traffic, then the fringe elements of free speech, who need the most protection, are under its thumb. On a more concrete level, the costs of immunizing ISPs falls mostly on innocents like Zeran. Immunizing the telephone company for libel on its lines is not too bad because a prankster can only reach one person at a time.
Any damage done is likely to be negligable.
We have to make the newspapers pay along with the reporter because the newspaper provides the forum for a reporter reaching thousands of people. Moreover, it only takes a little ingenuity to do so without identifying yourself. So, even if Zeran had identified the source of the postings, he probably could not recover enough money to repair the damage to his reputation and business. As I have said, the Zeran decision immunizing ISPs makes sense despite these concerns because the Internet is so new. On college campuses, we still have no idea what role it will play in the learning process, although the early returns indicate it will be crucial.