The author's integrity of communication must be the overriding consideration in any discussion about Free Speech.

Complete separation! It's so tempting to try to avoid this separation somehow, because with new technology and the new economy there are new and bold ways to compromise integrity, but this must be resisted. Communication is only as valuable as the integrity of the message allows, and we must not allow that integrity to be compromised. I feel that while it the practical methods and thought processes may be better expressed in other words, this is the foundational principle upon which we must build our ideals for in the coming years, as we will assuredly be facing fights to define this principles.

The Service Provider is not responsible for the content created by the Service User. Service User agrees not to do the following things as a condition of service. (X, Y, Z) Should the Service User do these things, all service will be terminated to the User until they are back in compliance with the contract. Notice that the ISP doesn't ever try to "fix" the problem by modifying anything in the Service User's datastream (which would include websites, streaming movies, etc.

The only rational agreement that preserves the right to free speech as we have come to cherish it looks like this:

A complete independence from the medium is a necessity.

Userland-as-sender (in this case Dave Winer) said something about Conxion, using Conxion as the medium, and you and I were the receivers. By exerting pressure on Userland to change their message, Conxion tried to be both the medium and the sender (jointly with Userland). That is a breach of the new ethics, IMHO.

...

In the model of communication rights I've been developing in my head, there are three roles an entity can play: They can be the sender, the receiver, or the medium. That's not new; what is is that I think that you should never be more then one of them at a time, even though we have the increasing ability to do as time progresses.

Or, the alternative... not just to not grant the power, but to forbid the meddling by ISPs. Make them content carriers and nothing more. Extend the First Amendment to protect us on the Internet... not just to protect We The People, but to protect the ISPs as well! If somebody says something libelous, let them be the sole beneficiaries of the consequences. This implies a certain model of interaction, which I wrote about on April 5th:

Thus, of the two choices, the results are so obvious when it comes to the implications for Free Speech that one would think it hardly needs to be said, but it seems it must. Allowing ISPs to exert content control will create an environment where nothing even faintly libelous will be allowed, which is to say, nothing faintly controversial will be allowed. This is not a healthy environment for the Great Conversation, and destroys much of the equalizing power of the Internet, as it moves all the power back to the very few companies who are rich enough to support the expensive Internet infrastructure.