<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Community Defense Counsel &#187; Case Abstracts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/category/case-abstracts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:30:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Judge: Utah&#8217;s Harm to Minors Internet Law is Unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/18/federal-judge-utahs-harm-to-minors-internet-law-is-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/18/federal-judge-utahs-harm-to-minors-internet-law-is-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Utah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet Service Providers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Florence v. Shurtleff]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2700</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765576910/Judge-overturns-Utahs-Internet-law.html">Deseret News</a>: The Utah law sought to make website operators or content providers liable for any material that the state deems harmful to minors. &#124; Opinion: <a href="http://www.acluutah.org/Florence_Order_051612.pdf">Florence v. Shurtleff</a>, No. 2:05-cv-00485-DB-SA]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/18/federal-judge-utahs-harm-to-minors-internet-law-is-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NY High Court: Viewing child pornography online is not necessarily possession under state law</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/08/viewing-child-pornography-online-is-not-necessarily-possession-under-state-law-ny-top-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/08/viewing-child-pornography-online-is-not-necessarily-possession-under-state-law-ny-top-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 21:28:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Possession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: People v. Kent]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/05_-_May/Viewing_child_pornography_is_not_necessarily_possession-NY_top_court/">Reuters</a>:  Viewing child pornography on the Internet without taking further action such as printing or saving files does not necessarily constitute possession, NewYork's top court ruled on Tuesday. &#124; <a href="http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/Decisions/2012/May12/70opn12.pdf">People v. Kent</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/08/viewing-child-pornography-online-is-not-necessarily-possession-under-state-law-ny-top-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit revives suit challenging pornography record keeping requirements</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/04/17/3rd-circuit-revives-suit-challenging-pornography-record-keeping-requirements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/04/17/3rd-circuit-revives-suit-challenging-pornography-record-keeping-requirements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:48:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 3rd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Record Keeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Warrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Free Speech Coalition v. Attorney General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2685</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/04_-_April/Court_revives_case_against_pornography_record-keeping_laws/">Reuters</a>: A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived a lawsuit brought by members of the adult entertainment industry which challenges federal laws requiring pornography producers to report the ages of all performers.
&#124; <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1598907.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_3rd"> Free Speech Coalition v Attorney General</a>, No. 10-4085 (3rd Cir. April 16, 2012) (Before SCIRICA, RENDELL, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. )]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/04/17/3rd-circuit-revives-suit-challenging-pornography-record-keeping-requirements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refuses to hear ban on photographing people without their consent for sexual purposes</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/29/texas-court-of-criminal-appeals-refuses-to-hear-ban-on-photographing-people-without-their-consent-for-sexual-purposes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/29/texas-court-of-criminal-appeals-refuses-to-hear-ban-on-photographing-people-without-their-consent-for-sexual-purposes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Ex parte Nyabwa]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2680</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/5/21/21.15">Texas Penal Code § 21.15(b)(1)</a> makes it a crime to photograph someone “without the person’s consent” and “with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.” . . .  a Texas appellate court upheld the statute . . . Today, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to review . . . ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/29/texas-court-of-criminal-appeals-refuses-to-hear-ban-on-photographing-people-without-their-consent-for-sexual-purposes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>10th Circuit: Child Porn Defendant Loses on &#8216;Viewed&#8217; but not &#8216;Received&#8217; Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/14/10th-circuit-child-porn-defendant-loses-on-viewed-but-not-received-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/14/10th-circuit-child-porn-defendant-loses-on-viewed-but-not-received-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 10th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Possession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Sturm]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/tenth_circuit/2012/03/child-porn-defendant-loses-on-viewed-but-not-received-claim.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top">Findlaw</a>: [Defendant] . . . argued that viewing and search for child pornography doesn't qualify as receiving the images. The jury disagreed and convicted Sturm on both counts. Sturm appealed. This week, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Sturm's convictions. &#124; <a href="http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-1386.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Sturm</em></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/03/14/10th-circuit-child-porn-defendant-loses-on-viewed-but-not-received-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sixth Circuit: 1 Day Child Pornography Sentence Unreasonable</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/02/29/sixth-circuit-1-day-child-pornography-sentence-unreasonable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/02/29/sixth-circuit-1-day-child-pornography-sentence-unreasonable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 17:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 6th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Robinson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2672</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/sixth_circuit/2012/02/sixth-circuit-1-day-child-pornography-sentence-unreasonable.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top">Findlaw</a>: What’s an appropriate sentence for a defendant who pleads guilty to possessing over 7,100 images of child pornography? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to answer that precise question this week, it ruled that a one-day sentence and a $100 fine landed on the lax side of the child pornography sentence spectrum. &#124; <a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0056p-06.pdf">U.S. v. Robinson</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/02/29/sixth-circuit-1-day-child-pornography-sentence-unreasonable/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit asked to reinstate $19.6 million award against Hustler</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/26/11th-circuit-asked-to-reinstate-19-6-million-award-against-hustler/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/26/11th-circuit-asked-to-reinstate-19-6-million-award-against-hustler/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:42:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Toffoloni v. LFP Publishing Group]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2667</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/11th-circuit-asked-to-reinstate-19-6-million-award-against-hustler">First Amendment Center</a>: The <a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200816148.pdf" target="_blank">11<sup>th</sup> U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled</a> in June 2009 that a notorious death doesn’t give publishers a blank check to publish any images they wish. The case went to trial, and a jury in June 2011 voted to slap <em>Hustler Magazine</em> with $19.6 million in punitive damages for running the photos.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/26/11th-circuit-asked-to-reinstate-19-6-million-award-against-hustler/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>N.J. Supreme Court: Towns can reject sexually oriented businesses, citing locations in other states</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/20/n-j-supreme-court-towns-can-reject-sexually-oriented-businesses-citing-locations-in-other-states/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/20/n-j-supreme-court-towns-can-reject-sexually-oriented-businesses-citing-locations-in-other-states/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alternative Sites]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Borough of Sayreville v. 35 Club]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[HELD:  In evaluating the adequacy of alternative channels of communication when deciding an as-applied  constitutional challenge to the State’s statute limiting the places where sexually-oriented businesses may operate, trial courts are not precluded from considering the existence of sites that are located outside of New Jersey but that are found within the relevant market area as defined by the parties’ experts.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/20/n-j-supreme-court-towns-can-reject-sexually-oriented-businesses-citing-locations-in-other-states/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court refuses to resolve confusion over restitution for child porn victims</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-resolve-confusion-over-child-pornography-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-resolve-confusion-over-child-pornography-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2011 21:08:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Amy v. Monzel]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Federal courts have disagreed about how to enforce a law that requires people convicted of possessing child pornography to pay restitution to the victim, even if they didn't know the victim. But the Supreme Court refused to take up the case Monday . . . The case was <em>Amy v. Monzel</em> (11-85). 
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/28/supreme-court-refuses-to-resolve-confusion-over-child-pornography-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court asked to revisit City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.  concerning regulation of sexually oriented businesses</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/22/supreme-court-asked-to-revisit-city-of-los-angeles-v-alameda-books-inc-concerning-regulation-of-sexually-oriented-businesses/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/22/supreme-court-asked-to-revisit-city-of-los-angeles-v-alameda-books-inc-concerning-regulation-of-sexually-oriented-businesses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:42:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: City of Los Angeles v. Alameda]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2643</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-los-angeles-v-alameda-books-inc/">SCOTUSblog</a> reports that <em>City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.</em> is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court again.		
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/11/22/supreme-court-asked-to-revisit-city-of-los-angeles-v-alameda-books-inc-concerning-regulation-of-sexually-oriented-businesses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

