I agree that the publishing is probably covered under the language as written, but I still wonder about congressional intent. The New York Times (and every other newspaper site) “publishes” stories from “other” information content providers (presumably, all news stories are submitted electronically). I find it hard to believe that these newspapers are shielded from all liability. That is the limit of the argument. Is the difference that they pay for it? Why should that matter? The statute certainly doesn’t provide that exception.

Here, however, the person selected and then republished the story – this is more than even “distribution” in the technical sense. It also seems strange that if a story is initially posted online, then it is immunized, but if a printed statement is quoted online, it is not (at least, that’s how I read information content provider).

I suppose on the other hand the broad statutory language shouldn’t ensnare unsuspecting users, and Congress should clarify. I tend to fall into the Cubby v. Compuserve camp – if you exert some sort of selection decisionmaking, then you have a duty (with notice) to take down defamatory statements.