<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>LAist: LAPD&apos;s New Blogger Warns Against Anonymous Commenters</title>
<link>http://laist.com/2008/04/23/lapds_new_blogg.php</link>
<description>All comments for LAPD&apos;s New Blogger Warns Against Anonymous Commenters</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2008 la_jeremy</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:00:00 -0800</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>jeremy.oberstein@gmail.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>jeremy.oberstein@gmail.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>DF</title>
<link>http://laist.com/2008/04/23/lapds_new_blogg.php#comment-1346193</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://laist.com/2008/04/23/lapds_new_blogg.php#comment-1346193</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:09:19 -0800</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;The answer to your question is that as long as the forum is run by a private party rather than a state actor, you can be as selective and biased as you want in moderating comments.  The First Amendment&apos;s speech protections apply only to state actors like the LAPD or City of Sta Clarita, not to privately run sites like LAist or, as the case may be, Losanjealous. &lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>