<!-- <h2>Error establishing a connection to the <em>Coppermine</em> database.</h2>
<p>Most probably the database is offline, or the settings are incorrect.</p>--> <?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: FBI vs. Ellison from another perspective</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/03/29/fbi-vs-ellison-from-another-perspective/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/03/29/fbi-vs-ellison-from-another-perspective/</link>
	<description>The Blog@ Team and prominent comics personalities share what’s on their minds.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:43:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: markus</title>
		<link>http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/03/29/fbi-vs-ellison-from-another-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-96205</link>
		<dc:creator>markus</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 14:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/03/29/fbi-vs-ellison-from-another-perspective/#comment-96205</guid>
		<description>I find it odd in that the end essentially seems to agree the suit for defamation is baseless yet this isn&#039;t reflected in the rest of the piece. Also, this is nonsense:
&lt;i&gt;Besides, if it&#039;s already up on the Web, what&#039;s with all this First Amendment stuff? What&#039;s done is done, bra. Let it go.&lt;/i&gt;
One can&#039;t &quot;let it go&quot; if one is being sued, only the person suing can do that. And of course something (which may or may not be one in the first place) doesn&#039;t stop being a First Amendment issue because one is free to post it to a website at one point and later get sued out of existence for it. 

It&#039;s also IMO needlessly antagonistic and trying its hardest to work up the grudge match angle and downplay a serious discussion of the merits of the matter, but that&#039;s modern journalism.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it odd in that the end essentially seems to agree the suit for defamation is baseless yet this isn&#8217;t reflected in the rest of the piece. Also, this is nonsense:<br />
<i>Besides, if it&#8217;s already up on the Web, what&#8217;s with all this First Amendment stuff? What&#8217;s done is done, bra. Let it go.</i><br />
One can&#8217;t &#8220;let it go&#8221; if one is being sued, only the person suing can do that. And of course something (which may or may not be one in the first place) doesn&#8217;t stop being a First Amendment issue because one is free to post it to a website at one point and later get sued out of existence for it. </p>
<p>It&#8217;s also IMO needlessly antagonistic and trying its hardest to work up the grudge match angle and downplay a serious discussion of the merits of the matter, but that&#8217;s modern journalism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim O'Shea</title>
		<link>http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/03/29/fbi-vs-ellison-from-another-perspective/comment-page-1/#comment-96053</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim O'Shea</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2007 02:24:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.newsarama.com/2007/03/29/fbi-vs-ellison-from-another-perspective/#comment-96053</guid>
		<description>Nice piece. It will be interesting to see how both sides react to the coverage, though. 

The line that really hit me:
&quot;Both parties admit that Ellison may not live long enough to see a trial.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice piece. It will be interesting to see how both sides react to the coverage, though. </p>
<p>The line that really hit me:<br />
&#8220;Both parties admit that Ellison may not live long enough to see a trial.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
