<?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: Does the Packingham Ruling Presage Greater Government Control Over Search Results? Or Less? (Guest Blog Post)	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/06/does-the-packingham-ruling-presage-greater-government-control-over-search-results-or-less-guest-blog-post.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/06/does-the-packingham-ruling-presage-greater-government-control-over-search-results-or-less-guest-blog-post.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2017 19:02:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Theperkyone		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2017/06/does-the-packingham-ruling-presage-greater-government-control-over-search-results-or-less-guest-blog-post.htm#comment-1877</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Theperkyone]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Jul 2017 19:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=17333#comment-1877</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The underlying conflict has always been Google&#039;s insistence on one hand that it is a neutral party and on the other that its output is editorial free speech which the government can&#039;t compel.  This stance is woefully inconsistent with the way our culture has traditionally done business. From sport&#039;s umpires to judges the price of being perceived as neutral is public silence. Google doesn&#039;t want to pay that price because profit margins but over the long-term it is not a sustainable position.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The underlying conflict has always been Google&#8217;s insistence on one hand that it is a neutral party and on the other that its output is editorial free speech which the government can&#8217;t compel.  This stance is woefully inconsistent with the way our culture has traditionally done business. From sport&#8217;s umpires to judges the price of being perceived as neutral is public silence. Google doesn&#8217;t want to pay that price because profit margins but over the long-term it is not a sustainable position.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
