<?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: British government look at age ratings for Web sites</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/12/27/british-government-look-at-age-ratings-for-web-sites/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure: /2008/12/27/british-government-look-at-age-ratings-for-web-sites/</link>
	<description>Technology news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:15:02 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alastair Scott</title>
		<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2008/12/27/british-government-look-at-age-ratings-for-web-sites/comment-page-1/#comment-153880</link>
		<dc:creator>Alastair Scott</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.blorge.com/?p=10637#comment-153880</guid>
		<description>The man is clearly badly informed - I put it politely - because (quite apart from the actual proposal):

1. The Internet was _invented_ by an arm of the US Government (and controlled by it for a long time);

2. Libel is not an &quot;emerging issue&quot;; libellous comments have been part of the Internet landscape for as far back as I remember (almost 15 years), and there has been nothing stopping libel suits using existing law. Here we go again - proposing laws which overlap existing laws to give the impression of doing something.

In his defence, there was a radio interview yesterday afternoon in which he was much more moderate (followed by a counter-interview which demolished his arguments ...) and the Telegraph is a Tory newspaper (whereas Burnham is Labour) so can be relied on for negative spin, leading questions etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The man is clearly badly informed &#8211; I put it politely &#8211; because (quite apart from the actual proposal):</p>
<p>1. The Internet was _invented_ by an arm of the US Government (and controlled by it for a long time);</p>
<p>2. Libel is not an &#8220;emerging issue&#8221;; libellous comments have been part of the Internet landscape for as far back as I remember (almost 15 years), and there has been nothing stopping libel suits using existing law. Here we go again &#8211; proposing laws which overlap existing laws to give the impression of doing something.</p>
<p>In his defence, there was a radio interview yesterday afternoon in which he was much more moderate (followed by a counter-interview which demolished his arguments &#8230;) and the Telegraph is a Tory newspaper (whereas Burnham is Labour) so can be relied on for negative spin, leading questions etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
