<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://updates.zdnet.com/">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[section 230 Resources | ZDNet]]></title>
	<link><![CDATA[http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/section+230.html]]></link>
	<description><![CDATA[White papers, case studies, technical articles, and blog posts relating to section 230]]></description>
	<s:counts start="0" returned="7" found="7" />
	<language>en-us</language>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Section 230 to Twitter and others:  Delete away]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12556-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=47993&messageID=895139&start=0]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Section 230 to Twitter and others:  Delete awayDozier's Position Isn't SurprisingThis isn't the first time that Dozier has made questionable Cyberlaw assessments.  See, e.g., http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/10/misuse-via-cease-desist-letters.htmlEric.Figured as muchThanks Eric!]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Discussion threads]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 May 2008 07:01:00 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/dozier.html"><![CDATA[Dozier]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/section+230.html"><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/twitter.html"><![CDATA[Twitter]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Section 230 as safe harbor for case-based identity systems?]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=130]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:23:26 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/user+generated+content.html"><![CDATA[User generated content]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/trust.html"><![CDATA[Trust]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/social+networking.html"><![CDATA[Social networking]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/search.html"><![CDATA[Search]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/lawsuits.html"><![CDATA[Lawsuits]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/identity.html"><![CDATA[Identity]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/attention.html"><![CDATA[Attention]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Digg and cracking HD-DVD:  Reimerdes comes to social news]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=122]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Techmeme is all a-flutter, and my ZDNet colleagues have been right on top of the Digg/HD-DVD crack story.  Heres my quick take on things, as I run off to OnHollywood where Kevin Rose spoke this morning:Nothing says Digg has to respond to a mere demand letter under any circumstances....]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2007 12:02:06 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/voice.html"><![CDATA[Voice]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/user+generated+content.html"><![CDATA[User generated content]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/social+news.html"><![CDATA[Social news]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/social+networking.html"><![CDATA[Social networking]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/lawsuits.html"><![CDATA[Lawsuits]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/drm.html"><![CDATA[DRM]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/dmca.html"><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/blogging.html"><![CDATA[Blogging]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Courts continue to immunize community sites under CDA Section 230, but what about the Live Web?]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=101]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Hard on the heels of a Texas district courts recent decision to dismiss claims against MySpace, Howard Bashman spotted a recent Section 230 decision out of the First Circuit that continues in this vein, and emphasizes the clear judicial trend of applying Section 230s protections to Web sites acting as...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 18:20:38 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/user+generated+content.html"><![CDATA[User generated content]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/mashups.html"><![CDATA[Mashups]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/defamation.html"><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/podcasting.html"><![CDATA[Podcasting]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/live+web.html"><![CDATA[Live Web]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/free+speech.html"><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/copyright.html"><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/blogging.html"><![CDATA[Blogging]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/anonymity.html"><![CDATA[Anonymity]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Section 230 immunizes MySpace from both conduct and speech, says district court]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=81]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Evan Brown has a good summary of last weeks Doe v. MySpace decision, wherein a federal district court in Texas threw out claims against MySpace due to the protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  As Evan describes:Julie Doe, the anonymous minor plaintiff, lied about her...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Feb 2007 17:08:06 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/blogging.html"><![CDATA[Blogging]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/compliance.html"><![CDATA[Compliance]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/free+speech.html"><![CDATA[Free speech]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/lawsuits.html"><![CDATA[Lawsuits]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/privacy.html"><![CDATA[Privacy]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/social+networking.html"><![CDATA[Social networking]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/user+generated+content.html"><![CDATA[User generated content]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/virtual+worlds.html"><![CDATA[Virtual worlds]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[California Supreme Court says individuals not liable for defamatory online third party acts]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=64]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[The California Supreme Courts opinion in Barrett v. Rosenthal issued today, and, as was widely anticipated, the Court reversed the appellate decision that was under review.  Although the case involved a newsgroup posting, todays decision is nevertheless excellent news for bloggers, and brings California law in line with that...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:15:18 -0800</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/blogging.html"><![CDATA[Blogging]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/podcasting.html"><![CDATA[Podcasting]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/user+generated+content.html"><![CDATA[User generated content]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/video.html"><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/defamation.html"><![CDATA[Defamation]]></category>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Not thy commenter's keeper]]></title>
		<link><![CDATA[http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=27]]></link>
		<description><![CDATA[Based on the reactions of many of those who attended oral argument before the California Supreme Court in Barrett v. Rosenthal, indications are strong that the Court will come down on the side of protecting those who provide a platform for, but do not author or edit, third party comments...]]></description>
		<s:doctype><![CDATA[Blog posts]]></s:doctype>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Sep 2006 14:38:51 -0700</pubDate>
		<category domain="http://updates.zdnet.com/tags/section+230.html"><![CDATA[Section 230]]></category>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
