<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Court: Section 230 is an affirmative defense, thus it&#8217;s (generally) not an appropriate basis for a Motion to Dismiss</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/02/26/court-section-230-is-an-affirmative-defense-thus-its-generally-not-an-appropriate-basis-for-a-motion-to-dismiss/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/02/26/court-section-230-is-an-affirmative-defense-thus-its-generally-not-an-appropriate-basis-for-a-motion-to-dismiss/</link>
	<description>Laws and litigation that regulate, challenge and immunize Internet websites and other online services</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:13:52 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Feminist Law Professors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Notable Internet Privacy Litigation: Curran v. Amazon.com, Inc.</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/2008/02/26/court-section-230-is-an-affirmative-defense-thus-its-generally-not-an-appropriate-basis-for-a-motion-to-dismiss/#comment-596</link>
		<dc:creator>Feminist Law Professors &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Notable Internet Privacy Litigation: Curran v. Amazon.com, Inc.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/?p=131#comment-596</guid>
		<description>[...] his whole post here.  See also this, which Eric links to. The current legal framework of cyberspace facilitates free speech, but leaves [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] his whole post here.  See also this, which Eric links to. The current legal framework of cyberspace facilitates free speech, but leaves [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
