<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Perfect 10 seeks Supreme Court review of Section 230 ruling</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/</link>
	<description>Laws and litigation that regulate, challenge and immunize Internet websites and other online services</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:02:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Perfect 10 files Reply Brief with Supreme Court &#171; Online Liability Blog™</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/#comment-183</link>
		<dc:creator>Perfect 10 files Reply Brief with Supreme Court &#171; Online Liability Blog™</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:58:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/#comment-183</guid>
		<description>[...] you missed them, here are links to my prior posts on the petition itself, and the Respondents’ opposition brief, as well as a summary of the Ninth Circuit&#8217;s [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] you missed them, here are links to my prior posts on the petition itself, and the Respondents’ opposition brief, as well as a summary of the Ninth Circuit&#8217;s [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CCBill and CWIE file brief opposing Perfect 10&#8217;s Supreme Court Petition &#171; Online Liability Blog™</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/#comment-174</link>
		<dc:creator>CCBill and CWIE file brief opposing Perfect 10&#8217;s Supreme Court Petition &#171; Online Liability Blog™</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Nov 2007 22:54:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/#comment-174</guid>
		<description>[...] and CWIE file brief opposing Perfect 10&#8217;s Supreme Court&#160;Petition  A few months ago I wrote about the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed by Perfect 10, Inc. with the U.S. Supreme Court in [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] and CWIE file brief opposing Perfect 10&#8217;s Supreme Court&nbsp;Petition  A few months ago I wrote about the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed by Perfect 10, Inc. with the U.S. Supreme Court in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: End of the road for Delfino/Roommate advice &#171; Online Liability Blog™</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>End of the road for Delfino/Roommate advice &#171; Online Liability Blog™</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Oct 2007 15:46:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2007/09/04/perfect-10-seeks-supreme-court-review-of-section-230-ruling/#comment-54</guid>
		<description>[...] O&#8217;Toole reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, a California state court decision broadly construing Section 230 protections. I had no idea the petition was pending, but am not surprised by the Court&#8217;s refusal to hear an appeal. His report also updates us on the status of the Perfect 10 petition. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] O&#8217;Toole reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied certiorari in Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, a California state court decision broadly construing Section 230 protections. I had no idea the petition was pending, but am not surprised by the Court&#8217;s refusal to hear an appeal. His report also updates us on the status of the Perfect 10 petition. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
