Law Review: Alternatives for Adult Uses Required When Town is Sued
Alternatives for Adult Uses Required When Town is Sued
Anthony S. Guardino, 5/26/2010 N.Y.L.J. 5, (col. 2)
“The particular issue in TJS was whether the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance should only be evaluated with regard to the ‘alternative avenues of communication‘ the ordinance left open at the time it was passed, or those it left open at the time it was challenged.”
According to Delaware law, “proper unit of prosecution” is per image
Fink v. Phelps, No. 06-181-GMS, 2010 WL 2104233 (D. Del. May 25, 2010)
Australian airport crackdown on pornography angers lobbyists
“A new requirement that travellers to Australia declare any pornography they’re carrying is being condemned by lobbyists for internet freedom and the sex industry.”
Defiant judge takes on child pornography law
Defiant judge takes on child pornography law
New York Times, A. G. Sulzberger, 5.21.2010
“In his 43-year career as a federal judge, Jack B. Weinstein has come to be identified by his efforts to combat what he calls ‘the unnecessary cruelty of the law.’ His most recent crusade is particularly striking because of the beneficiary: a man who has amassed a vast collection of child pornography.”
CA: Victim of child pornography awarded $2,851.20
U.S. v. Yang, No. 1:09-CR-00168 AWI, 2010 WL 2011561 (E.D. Cal. May 19. 2010)
9th Circuit: Possession is lesser-included offense of receipt
U.S. v. Latham, No. 09-10099, 2010 WL 1936279 (9th Cir. May 14, 2010)
Non-conforming use provision does not apply to new business at old site
Goppelt v. Ascension Parish Council, No. 2009 CA 1698, 2010 WL 1946670 (La. App. May 13, 2010)
WA Supreme Court: Libraries can block internet porn
Bradburn v. N. Cent. Reg’l Library Dist., No. 82200-0 (Wash. May 6, 2010)
Library’s internet filtering policy is neither prior restraint on free speech nor impermissible content-based restriction on speech.
4th Circuit: Yahoo, ISP “subscriber information” subpoenas do not violate 4th Amendment
U.S. v. Bynum, No. 08-4207, 604 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. May 5, 2010)
