<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Zeran v. America Online, Inc.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://onlineliabilityblog.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com</link>
	<description>47 USC 230(c)(1) a/k/a Section 230, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 00:18:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Section 230 ICP Allegations: Plausible or Possible? &#171; Online Liability Blog</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-2637</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Section 230 ICP Allegations: Plausible or Possible? &#171; Online Liability Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Apr 2011 21:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-2637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] getting to the meat of the case, the panel reminded everyone that, per its previous ruling in Zeran, “our Circuit clearly views the § 230 provision as an immunity.”  Thus when applicable, [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] getting to the meat of the case, the panel reminded everyone that, per its previous ruling in Zeran, “our Circuit clearly views the § 230 provision as an immunity.”  Thus when applicable, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Section 230 does not shield website from state IP claims &#171; Online Liability Blog™</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-665</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Section 230 does not shield website from state IP claims &#171; Online Liability Blog™]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:58:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-665</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] his analysis by affirming the principle, adopted by most Federal Circuits, that, stemming from Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), sections [47 U.S.C.] 230(c)(1), (f)(3), and (e)(3) of the CDA bar [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] his analysis by affirming the principle, adopted by most Federal Circuits, that, stemming from Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), sections [47 U.S.C.] 230(c)(1), (f)(3), and (e)(3) of the CDA bar [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Court: Section 230 is an affirmative defense, thus it&#8217;s (generally) not an appropriate basis for a Motion to Dismiss &#171; Online Liability Blog™</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-591</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Court: Section 230 is an affirmative defense, thus it&#8217;s (generally) not an appropriate basis for a Motion to Dismiss &#171; Online Liability Blog™]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Feb 2008 20:14:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-591</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Regardless, after considering caselaw on the procedural point of whether the Court may properly consider CafePress&#8217;s TOS agreement on this issue, the Court declined to so consider it. Instead the Court directed that “CDA immunity is a question awaiting discovery and exploration, though plaintiff faces an uphill battle given the broad grant of immunity conferred by § 230, as interpreted in the seminal case of” Zeran. [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Regardless, after considering caselaw on the procedural point of whether the Court may properly consider CafePress&#8217;s TOS agreement on this issue, the Court declined to so consider it. Instead the Court directed that “CDA immunity is a question awaiting discovery and exploration, though plaintiff faces an uphill battle given the broad grant of immunity conferred by § 230, as interpreted in the seminal case of” Zeran. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seventh Circuit considers whether Section 230 protects Craigslist from Fair Housing Act claims &#171; Online Liability Blog™</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-581</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Seventh Circuit considers whether Section 230 protects Craigslist from Fair Housing Act claims &#171; Online Liability Blog™]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 03:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-581</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] expressed approval for the federal courts&#8217; interpretation of Section 230 to date, citing the Zeran decision in [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] expressed approval for the federal courts&#8217; interpretation of Section 230 to date, citing the Zeran decision in [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Website (search engine?) not entitled to Section 230 protection for FTC Act violation &#171; Online Liability Blog™</title>
		<link>http://onlineliabilityblog.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-126</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Website (search engine?) not entitled to Section 230 protection for FTC Act violation &#171; Online Liability Blog™]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2007 04:35:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://onlineliabilityblog.wordpress.com/zeran-v-america-online-inc/#comment-126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] in this context). Seeking evidence of congressional intent for guidance, the court looked to Zeran, which pointed to the threat of tort-based lawsuits, and desire to encourage self-regulation of [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in this context). Seeking evidence of congressional intent for guidance, the court looked to Zeran, which pointed to the threat of tort-based lawsuits, and desire to encourage self-regulation of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

