Eric Goldman is correct, of course, that ISPs are not entities of the state and therefore do not involve state action. However -- and I didn't mention this earlier because I was trying to be brief rather than spelling out the entire argument of the piece -- ISPs now function as quasi-public forums because they are fundamental to the ways in which we communicate via the internet. As quasi-public forums, constitutional standards must be met in order to restrict speech. I'm arguing that public forum analysis must be applied to ISPs. This, too, has been raised in court but earlier on, before terms of service began to become harmonized with each other, and before the internet had become so significant as a medium of public communication. The claim is not that what ISPs are doing is illegal -- but that because they now are the gateway to the public spaces of communication the trends in terms of service and acceptable use policies are of serious importance and can have the EFFECT of completely undermining constitutional protections for political speech so carefully built up over so many environments. Sandra Braman