<?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: YouTube Isn&#8217;t Liable for User Uploads of Animal Abuse Videos&#8211;Lady Freethinker v. YouTube	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/06/youtube-isnt-liable-for-user-uploads-of-animal-abuse-videos-lady-freethinker-v-youtube.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/06/youtube-isnt-liable-for-user-uploads-of-animal-abuse-videos-lady-freethinker-v-youtube.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 21:00:47 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Ninth Circuit Does More Damage to Section 230-Calise v. Meta - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/06/youtube-isnt-liable-for-user-uploads-of-animal-abuse-videos-lady-freethinker-v-youtube.htm#comment-4260</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ninth Circuit Does More Damage to Section 230-Calise v. Meta - Technology &#38; Marketing Law Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 21:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=26421#comment-4260</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] instead held that Section 230 applies to contract breach claims in many circumstances, including an opinion this week from the California Appeals Court. That opinion [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] instead held that Section 230 applies to contract breach claims in many circumstances, including an opinion this week from the California Appeals Court. That opinion [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
