<?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: Blogiversary Celebration Part 2: About the Blog&#8217;s Impact	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/02/blogiversary-celebration-part-2-about-the-blogs-impact.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/02/blogiversary-celebration-part-2-about-the-blogs-impact.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2015 16:46:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Blogiversary Celebration Part 3: How the Blogosphere Has Evolved		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/02/blogiversary-celebration-part-2-about-the-blogs-impact.htm#comment-1175</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Blogiversary Celebration Part 3: How the Blogosphere Has Evolved]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:07:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13706#comment-1175</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary! Part 2: The Blog&#8217;s Impact Part 3: The Blogosphere&#8217;s Evolution Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary! Part 2: The Blog&#8217;s Impact Part 3: The Blogosphere&#8217;s Evolution Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Happy 10th Blogiversary! (Blogiversary Celebration Part 1)		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/02/blogiversary-celebration-part-2-about-the-blogs-impact.htm#comment-1173</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Happy 10th Blogiversary! (Blogiversary Celebration Part 1)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:07:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13706#comment-1173</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary! Part 2: The Blog&#8217;s Impact Part 3: The Blogosphere&#8217;s Evolution Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary! Part 2: The Blog&#8217;s Impact Part 3: The Blogosphere&#8217;s Evolution Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Blogiversary Celebration Part 4: How Internet Law and IP Law Have Evolved		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/02/blogiversary-celebration-part-2-about-the-blogs-impact.htm#comment-1172</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Blogiversary Celebration Part 4: How Internet Law and IP Law Have Evolved]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Feb 2015 20:06:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13706#comment-1172</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary! Part 2: The Blog&#8217;s Impact Part 3: The Blogosphere&#8217;s Evolution Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] 1: Happy 10th Blogiversary! Part 2: The Blog&#8217;s Impact Part 3: The Blogosphere&#8217;s Evolution Part 4: Changes in Internet and IP [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: curtisneeley		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2015/02/blogiversary-celebration-part-2-about-the-blogs-impact.htm#comment-1166</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[curtisneeley]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=13706#comment-1166</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I read this BLOG occasionally and am glad it is here. I do not often agree with the treatment  47 U.S.C. 230 gets.  (47 U.S.C. 230) is treated as if this immoral mistake of law is sacred. It appears the FCC Commissioner(s) I talked with have decided to unanimously declare &quot;online&quot; to simply be wire communications combined with radio communications.  It was interesting to see the (Garcia v Google Inc) case mentioned here.
  
The en banc appeal result will be affirmation of the injunction in place now but finally ruling  the copy[rite] REGIME in America is unconstitutional on its face. The Copy[rite] Act of 1790 was misspelled and failed and still fails to protect the fundamental human right to control communications.  This human right was already protected in England since 1734. The progress clause of the Constitution authorized Congress to protect this human right.  This fundamental human right to control original free speech was only marginally protected by the &quot;Statute of Anne&quot; rite from England copied almost verbatim in the Copy[rite] Act of 1790.

Forgetting what was said after the speaker repents and retracts what was once said does not change history but requires prior speech to be repeated anonymously since the human ability to &quot;fix&quot; speech must honor the human right to control original communications.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read this BLOG occasionally and am glad it is here. I do not often agree with the treatment  47 U.S.C. 230 gets.  (47 U.S.C. 230) is treated as if this immoral mistake of law is sacred. It appears the FCC Commissioner(s) I talked with have decided to unanimously declare &#8220;online&#8221; to simply be wire communications combined with radio communications.  It was interesting to see the (Garcia v Google Inc) case mentioned here.</p>
<p>The en banc appeal result will be affirmation of the injunction in place now but finally ruling  the copy[rite] REGIME in America is unconstitutional on its face. The Copy[rite] Act of 1790 was misspelled and failed and still fails to protect the fundamental human right to control communications.  This human right was already protected in England since 1734. The progress clause of the Constitution authorized Congress to protect this human right.  This fundamental human right to control original free speech was only marginally protected by the &#8220;Statute of Anne&#8221; rite from England copied almost verbatim in the Copy[rite] Act of 1790.</p>
<p>Forgetting what was said after the speaker repents and retracts what was once said does not change history but requires prior speech to be repeated anonymously since the human ability to &#8220;fix&#8221; speech must honor the human right to control original communications.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
