<?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</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress</link>
	<description>Protecting Children and Their Neighborhoods</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 19:38:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Case highlights inconsistency between N.Y. statutory rape laws, federal child porn laws</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464239348">Law.com</a>: "A federal appeals panel has thrown out a child pornography conviction that was based on explicit photographs texted by a 17-year-old to her field-hockey coach. The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals held there was no evidence that defendant Todd Broxmeyer asked 17-year-old 'A.W.' to take the pictures, and therefore no evidence that he 'produced' them as defined by the federal child pornography statutes." &#124; <a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9ea04a55-5ad3-43fd-9a1c-abe4fb26fae1/1/doc/09-1457-cr_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9ea04a55-5ad3-43fd-9a1c-abe4fb26fae1/1/hilite/"><em>USA v. Broxmeyer</em></a>, No. 09-1457-cr (2nd Cir. Aug. 3, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal record keeping requirements requiring porn producers to maintain age and identity records pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 2257 and 2257A are not unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/27/federal-record-keeping-requirements-requiring-porn-producers-to-maintain-age-and-identity-records-pursuant-to-18-u-s-c-%c2%a7%c2%a7-2257-and-2257a-are-not-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/27/federal-record-keeping-requirements-requiring-porn-producers-to-maintain-age-and-identity-records-pursuant-to-18-u-s-c-%c2%a7%c2%a7-2257-and-2257a-are-not-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 19:14:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Age]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Record Keeping]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Holder]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2379</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cases/20100727.pdf"><em>Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Holder</em></a>, No. 09-4607 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/27/federal-record-keeping-requirements-requiring-porn-producers-to-maintain-age-and-identity-records-pursuant-to-18-u-s-c-%c2%a7%c2%a7-2257-and-2257a-are-not-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: A special condition of supervised released prohibiting possession of all materials containing nudity is stricken on overbreadth grounds</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Nebraska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nudity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Simons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/2010072101.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Simons</em></a>, No. 09-2142 (8th Cir. July 21, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/21/8th-circuit-a-special-condition-of-supervised-released-prohibiting-possession-of-all-materials-containing-nudity-is-stricken-on-overbreadth-grounds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Licensing provisions are unconstitutional where they fail to require the city to act on applications within a specified period of time</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/19/licensing-provisions-are-unconstitutional-where-they-fail-to-require-the-city-to-act-on-applications-within-a-specified-period-of-time/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/19/licensing-provisions-are-unconstitutional-where-they-fail-to-require-the-city-to-act-on-applications-within-a-specified-period-of-time/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:33:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Washington]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>ATL Corp. v. City of Seattle</em>, No. C09-1240RSL, 2010 WL 2836164 (D. Wash. July 19, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/19/licensing-provisions-are-unconstitutional-where-they-fail-to-require-the-city-to-act-on-applications-within-a-specified-period-of-time/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>4th Circuit upholds Virginia mixed alcohol restrictions on sexually oriented businesses</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/15/4th-circuit-upholds-virginia-mixed-alcohol-restrictions-on-sexually-oriented-businesses-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/15/4th-circuit-upholds-virginia-mixed-alcohol-restrictions-on-sexually-oriented-businesses-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Imaginary Images Inc. v. Evans]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2383</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/091199.P.pdf">Imaginary Images, Inc. v. Evans</a></em>, No. 09-1199 (4th Cir. July 15, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/15/4th-circuit-upholds-virginia-mixed-alcohol-restrictions-on-sexually-oriented-businesses-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AL: Montage containing photographs of nude child and adult genitalia is child pornography</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/25/al-montage-containing-photographs-of-nude-child-and-adult-genitalia-is-child-pornography/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/25/al-montage-containing-photographs-of-nude-child-and-adult-genitalia-is-child-pornography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:59:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alabama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: McFadden v. Alabama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2367</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>McFadden v. Alabama</em>, 2010 WL 2562269 (Ala.Crim.App., June 25, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/25/al-montage-containing-photographs-of-nude-child-and-adult-genitalia-is-child-pornography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit: Residence used for recording sexual activity to broadcast on the Internet properly regulated as business</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/25/11th-circuit-residence-used-for-recording-sexual-activity-to-broadcast-on-the-internet-properly-regulated-as-business/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/25/11th-circuit-residence-used-for-recording-sexual-activity-to-broadcast-on-the-internet-properly-regulated-as-business/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:52:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2341</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200911264.pdf"><em>FlavaWorks, Inc., v. City of Miami</em></a><strong>, No. 09-11264, 609 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. June 25, 2010)

Residence used for recording sexual activity to broadcast on the Internet was not properly regulated as an "adult businesses" but was properly regulated as a business.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/25/11th-circuit-residence-used-for-recording-sexual-activity-to-broadcast-on-the-internet-properly-regulated-as-business/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>6th Circuit: Knowledge of a minor&#8217;s age is not an element of the federal offense of producing child pornography and defendant is not entitled to a mistake-of-age defense</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/11/6th-circuit-knowledge-of-a-minors-age-is-not-an-element-of-the-federal-offense-of-producing-child-pornography-and-defendant-is-not-entitled-to-a-mistake-of-age-defense/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/11/6th-circuit-knowledge-of-a-minors-age-is-not-an-element-of-the-federal-offense-of-producing-child-pornography-and-defendant-is-not-entitled-to-a-mistake-of-age-defense/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 6th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Mistake of Age Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v. Humphrey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2369</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0170p-06.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Humphrey</em></a><strong>, Nos. 08-5850/5867, 608 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. June 11, 2010 )]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/11/6th-circuit-knowledge-of-a-minors-age-is-not-an-element-of-the-federal-offense-of-producing-child-pornography-and-defendant-is-not-entitled-to-a-mistake-of-age-defense/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ontario Appeal Court rejects man&#8217;s artistic child porn defence</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/08/ontario-appeal-court-rejects-mans-artistic-child-porn-defence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/08/ontario-appeal-court-rejects-mans-artistic-child-porn-defence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Country: Canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Artistic Value]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/decisions/2010/june/2010ONCA0411.pdf"><em>R. v. Katigbak</em></a>, 2010 ONCA 411, June 8, 2010]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/08/ontario-appeal-court-rejects-mans-artistic-child-porn-defence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: Federal statute criminalizing production of child pornography does not exceed Congress&#8217;s constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Commerce Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/06/092787U.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Lemke</em></a>, No. 09-2787, 2010 WL 2219063 (8th Cir. June 4, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
