<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://updates.zdnet.com/">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[first amendment Resources | ZDNet]]></title>
	<link><![CDATA[http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html]]></link>
	<description><![CDATA[White papers, case studies, technical articles, and blog posts relating to first amendment]]></description>
	<s:counts start="0" returned="20" found="27" />
	<language>en-us</language>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Is keeping big media alive good for the future of journalism?]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11406-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=69419&messageID=1327196&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[All old media companies need to die off...They are too constrained reliving memories of past glory to change in any meaningful way. What we need are modern 21st century media companies who understand the digital world. If Amazon, Google, or Facebook were to start new media companies, you can bet...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:18:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/advertising+%2526+promotion.html"><![CDATA[Advertising & Promotion]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/media.html"><![CDATA[media]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/media+company.html"><![CDATA[media company]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/big+media.html"><![CDATA[big media]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[The First Amendment rights of anonymous defamers]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11155-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=68169&messageID=1298471&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Actually, this is a 6th amendment issue.Namely, the right to face your accuser in a court of law. The anonymity was stripped because the woman intended to file criminal charges.Huh?The blogger was intending to sue the celebrity?The difference between free speech and defamationWhy do people think they can say ANYTHING...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:35:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/defamation.html"><![CDATA[defamation]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/perpetrator.html"><![CDATA[perpetrator]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[The First Amendment rights of anonymous defamers]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://government.zdnet.com/?p=5268]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Photo posted on 'Skanks of NYC' blog    Yesterday I wrote that a Manhattan federal judge has ordered Google to tell supermodel Liskula Cohen the identity of the blogger behind the "Skanks of NYC" blog, which brands Cohen "a psychotic, lying, whoring, still going to clubs at her...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:38:20 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/defamation.html"><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/cahill.html"><![CDATA[Cahill]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/courts.html"><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/d.c.+case.html"><![CDATA[D.C. Case]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/internet.html"><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/richard+koman.html"><![CDATA[Richard Koman]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Supreme Court won't hear appeal in Va. antispam case]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4511]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[A Virginia antispam law is now officially unconstitutional.    The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Virginia Supreme Court decision that invalidated a state law that makes illegal all high-volume anonymous email communications.    I wrote about the case back in September,...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:58:15 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/speech.html"><![CDATA[Speech]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anti-spam.html"><![CDATA[Anti-spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/u.s.+supreme+court.html"><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/virginia.html"><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/e-mail.html"><![CDATA[E-mail]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam.html"><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/cyberthreats.html"><![CDATA[Cyberthreats]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/online+communications.html"><![CDATA[Online Communications]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/security.html"><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam+and+phishing.html"><![CDATA[Spam And Phishing]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/richard+koman.html"><![CDATA[Richard Koman]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/richard+koman.html"><![CDATA[Richard Koman]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Va. decision knocking down antispam law strikes blow for First Amendment]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11155-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=51930&messageID=977705&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Va. decision knocking down antispam law strikes blow for First AmendmentYour point still fails...Freedom of expression doesn't extend to having a legislated, forced audience!By the logic you illustrate here, it would be "illegal" or "unconstitutional" to1) not answer the phone or door, if proven that you were home;2) turn away...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:11:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam.html"><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/e-mail.html"><![CDATA[e-mail]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/antispam+law.html"><![CDATA[antispam law]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anti-spam.html"><![CDATA[anti-spam]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Va. decision knocking down antispam law strikes blow for First Amendment]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4000]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[The comments so far on the Virginia Supreme Court's invalidation of a state antispam law have been uniformly negative. One commenter, for instance, advocated spamming the opinion's author, Justice G. Steven Agee now on the federal bench.      If he gets enough spam maybe he will...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:37:20 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/speech.html"><![CDATA[Speech]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anti-spam.html"><![CDATA[Anti-spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/e-mail.html"><![CDATA[E-mail]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/online+communications.html"><![CDATA[Online Communications]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/richard+koman.html"><![CDATA[Richard Koman]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[In close First Amendment case, Virginia court upholds spammer conviction]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11155-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=45077&messageID=832884&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[In close First Amendment case, Virginia court upholds spammer convictionI'd say hate is a rather strong word.We don't hate spammers. We despise them.As for the constitutionality of anti-spam laws, we'll discuss that *after* the spammer has been executed. I'd suggest slow immersion into boiling oil while dangling suspended from his...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 10:16:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/jaynes.html"><![CDATA[Jaynes]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/party+invitation.html"><![CDATA[party invitation]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam.html"><![CDATA[spam]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[In close First Amendment case, Virginia court upholds spammer conviction]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3689]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[What do geeks hate more than free speech restrictions? Spammers! Thus, anti-spam laws are an interesting collision. Spamming is clearly speech -- albeit commercial speech. So are antispam laws constitutional?    The Virginia Supreme Court took that matter up in the case of Jeremy Jaynes, a particularly obnoxious...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:26:01 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/speech.html"><![CDATA[Speech]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anti-spam.html"><![CDATA[Anti-spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spamming.html"><![CDATA[Spamming]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/statute.html"><![CDATA[Statute]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/virginia.html"><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/jeremy+jaynes.html"><![CDATA[Jeremy Jaynes]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam.html"><![CDATA[Spam]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/security.html"><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/spam+and+phishing.html"><![CDATA[Spam And Phishing]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/richard+koman.html"><![CDATA[Richard Koman]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[The First Amendment and Wikileaks]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11155-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=44712&messageID=825366&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[The First Amendment and WikileaksNot Prior Restraint?  Horse-feathers!It is clear that this is unconstitutional, and only a lawyer would hedge his bets by giving the bank and the court any benefit of doubt.  This is the most egregious use of pernicious censorship that I have seen in ages:...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:54:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/wikileaks.html"><![CDATA[Wikileaks]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[The First Amendment and Wikileaks]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3665]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[To clarify some things I misunderstood about this story this morning. Dynadot is Wikileaks' domain registrar, and it was Dynadots not Wikileaks who stipulated to blocking the domain. Which explains why there was a stipulation at all. And why Wikileaks was so outraged by the court's action.   ...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:53:56 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/restraint.html"><![CDATA[Restraint]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/information.html"><![CDATA[Information]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/dynadot.html"><![CDATA[Dynadot]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/richard+koman.html"><![CDATA[Richard Koman]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Apple, ThinkSecret settlement: Bad precedent]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=42496&messageID=784407&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Apple, ThinkSecret settlement: Bad precedentBad Apple?This article should be called "Tales From the Darkside".  The irony is the legion of devotees that will help make excuses for the boorish behavior of the anal "control freak" with the fruity name.  Not much healthy about THAT fruit!!First amendment is not...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 09:23:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/irony.html"><![CDATA[irony]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/nda.html"><![CDATA[NDA]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/apple+inc..html"><![CDATA[Apple Inc.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/ibm+corp..html"><![CDATA[IBM Corp.]]></category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">AAPL</category>
		<category domain="http://rss.financialcontent.com/stocksymbol">IBM</category>
		<category domain="tickers">AAPL,IBM</category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Court tosses suit against Avvo, concluding algorithmic ratings are protected speech]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=204]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Lawyer rating start-up and nascent online community Avvo scored a big win yesterday when it convinced a Washington district court to dismiss a putative class action lawsuit filed last June.  Avvo aggregates available attorney information, assigns subjective and undisclosed value to various factors, and comes up with a 1-10...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 12:06:15 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/third+party.html"><![CDATA[Third Party]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/avvo.html"><![CDATA[Avvo]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/denise+howell.html"><![CDATA[Denise Howell]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Judge: National security letter provision is unconstitutional]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://government.zdnet.com/?p=3389]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Congress recently revised the USA Patriot Act to allow the FBI to use "national security letters" to compel companies - including Internet service providers and telecom companies - to produce customer records -- and forbid them from telling customers or anyone else about it. The law also severely limited the...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:47:44 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/security.html"><![CDATA[Security]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/law.html"><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/fbi.html"><![CDATA[FBI]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/judge.html"><![CDATA[Judge]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/zdnet+government.html"><![CDATA[ZDNet Government]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[House panel approves legal shield for bloggers]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11153-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=36888&messageID=678005&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[House panel approves legal shield for bloggersA good lawBut it doesn't go far enough. It should have also protected online bloggers who do not make any money off their websites through ads and other things.I was happy to see that they put in the 'reasonable exhaustion of other means' thing...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 13:42:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/blogging.html"><![CDATA[Blogging]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/vertical+industries.html"><![CDATA[Vertical industries]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/government.html"><![CDATA[government]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/blogger.html"><![CDATA[blogger]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/illegal+act.html"><![CDATA[illegal act]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/shield.html"><![CDATA[shield]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Judge: Child Online Protection Act unconstitutional]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11155-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=31850&messageID=587559&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Judge: Child Online Protection Act unconstitutionalThis is sick!I am so sick of hearing about some judge who is up on the First Amendment to the point that he is willing to jeapordize the safety of children. What rock did he crawl out from? After being involved with computer security for...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 05:41:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/regulations.html"><![CDATA[Regulations]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/security.html"><![CDATA[SECURITY]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment+rights.html"><![CDATA[FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/child+online+protection+act.html"><![CDATA[Child Online Protection Act]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[FCC, meet the First Amendment]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10537-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=28107&messageID=526752&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[FCC, meet the First AmendmentContent vs. PresentationI think it is important to distinguish between Content (ideas, thoughts) and Presentation (words, phrasing, imagery).The 1st ammendment should be upheld throughout all methods of communication, including TV and the internet.That ammendment protects our right to communicate our ideas the Content.However, Presentation (the specific...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:35:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/federal+government.html"><![CDATA[Federal government]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/fcc.html"><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[FCC, meet the First Amendment]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/?p=1355]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this week, the Federal Communications Commission said that broadcasters have "only limited First Amendment protection," that the V-chip is "ineffective," and that they have every right to  mete out punishment for the use of swear words as indecent practice.I dont know about you, but when I hear a...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:35:40 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/fcc.html"><![CDATA[FCC]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/regulatory.html"><![CDATA[Regulatory]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/general.html"><![CDATA[General]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Internet pushes schools to confront First Amendment issues]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12355-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=26846&messageID=504222&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Internet pushes schools to confront First Amendment issuesSo what does the ACLU think we should all learn?If we are trying to teach kids that they shouldn't use "offensive speech — it's crude, it's juvenile, it's profane," then what are we teachers supposed to learn from the issue at hand?And how...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:18:00 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/internet.html"><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Internet pushes schools to confront First Amendment issues]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://education.zdnet.com/?p=616]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[The rise of Internet usage in schools has raised some new freedom-of-speech issues that school boards across the country are just beginning to address,  reports USA Today.  As kids spend more of their free time blogging on the Internet, opinions that once might have stayed on the playground,...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:40:47 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/school+board.html"><![CDATA[school board]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Why employers are cracking down on e-mail]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-9588-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=23627&messageID=445261&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Why employers are cracking down on e-mailMore rights being violatedI think the author, and the businesses dismissing employees under these pretences are mistaken and in violation of the constitution"Also, some employees cling to the mistaken belief that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects all forms of their speech,...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:51:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/first+amendment.html"><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/skull.html"><![CDATA[Skull]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/e-mail.html"><![CDATA[e-mail]]></category>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
