<?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; Court: 11th Circuit</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/court-11th-circuit/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>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>11th Cir. Panel: Minor girls in &#8216;Wild&#8217; video to remain anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/01/11th-cir-panel-minor-girls-in-wild-video-to-remain-anonymous/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/01/11th-cir-panel-minor-girls-in-wild-video-to-remain-anonymous/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:58:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Plaintiff B v. Francis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2534</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GIRLS_GONE_WILD?SITE=AP&#38;SECTION=HOME&#38;TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">AP</a>: "A federal appeals court has ruled that two underage girls can keep their names under wraps in their lawsuit against "Girls Gone Wild" producer Joe Francis." &#124; <a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201010664.pdf"><em>Plaintiff B v. Francis</em></a>, No. 10-10664 (11th Cir. Feb. 1, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/01/11th-cir-panel-minor-girls-in-wild-video-to-remain-anonymous/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit upholds Manatee County, Fla. SOB ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/01/11th-circuit-upholds-manatee-county-fla-sob-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/01/11th-circuit-upholds-manatee-county-fla-sob-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Feb 2011 19:20:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Peek-a-Boo Lounge of Bradenton v. Manatee County Fla.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2532</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200916438.pdf"><em>Peek-a-Boo Lounge of Bradenton v. Manatee County, Fla</em></a>, No. 09-16438., 2011 WL 182819 (11th Cir. Jan. 21, 2011)
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/01/11th-circuit-upholds-manatee-county-fla-sob-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Split en banc 11th Circuit rules child molester&#8217;s 17½-year sentence substantively unreasonable</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/29/split-en-banc-11th-circuit-rules-child-molesters-17%c2%bd-year-sentence-substantively-unreasonable/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/29/split-en-banc-11th-circuit-rules-child-molesters-17%c2%bd-year-sentence-substantively-unreasonable/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:25:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Irey]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2409</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200810997op2.pdf">U.S. v. Irey</a></em>, No. 08-10997 (11th Cir. July 29, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/07/29/split-en-banc-11th-circuit-rules-child-molesters-17%c2%bd-year-sentence-substantively-unreasonable/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>admin</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>Should the obscenity standard for internet speech be national, or local?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/02/should-the-obscenity-standard-for-internet-speech-be-national-or-local/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/02/should-the-obscenity-standard-for-internet-speech-be-national-or-local/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Little]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20100302.html">FindLaw</a>: "Obscenity law has always had weak underpinnings. Now, due to the advent of the Internet, it may be toppled entirely, if courts truly begin to take seriously the due process and First Amendment problems it raises. If it is not toppled, then significant injustices – like the injustice perpetrated in the Paul Little case – will only continue."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/02/should-the-obscenity-standard-for-internet-speech-be-national-or-local/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit: County studies documenting negative secondary effects are sufficient for prohibition of alcohol at sexually oriented businesses</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/11th-circuit-county-studies-documenting-negative-secondary-effects-are-sufficient-for-prohibition-of-alcohol-at-sexually-oriented-businesses/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/11th-circuit-county-studies-documenting-negative-secondary-effects-are-sufficient-for-prohibition-of-alcohol-at-sexually-oriented-businesses/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:57:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Alcohol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Evidence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Flanigan's Enterprises Inc v Fulton County Ga]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1976</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200817035.pdf"><em>Flanigan’s  Enterprises, Inc. v. Fulton County, Ga.</em></a>, No. 08-17035 (11th  Cir., Feb. 16, 2010)

11th Circuit: County studies documenting negative secondary effects are sufficient for prohibition of alcohol at sexually oriented businesses.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/16/11th-circuit-county-studies-documenting-negative-secondary-effects-are-sufficient-for-prohibition-of-alcohol-at-sexually-oriented-businesses/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eleventh Circuit Rejects Ninth Circuit’s National-Standard-for-Internet-Obscenity Decision</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/04/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ninth-circuit%e2%80%99s-national-standard-for-internet-obscenity-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/04/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ninth-circuit%e2%80%99s-national-standard-for-internet-obscenity-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Ashcroft v ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Kilbride]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Little]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://volokh.com/2010/02/04/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ninth-circuits-national-standard-for-internet-obscenity-decision/">Eugene Volokh reports</a>: "<em><a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf" target="_blank">United States v. Little</a></em> concludes that Internet obscenity distribution prosecutions may rely on the community standard of the place in which the material was distributed — which means the government can try to download the material in the most restrictive community, and prosecute the distributor there. This may well be correct, given the Court’s decision in <em>Ashcroft v. ACLU</em> (I); and the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision in <em>U</em><em>nited States v. Kilbride</em> might well be mistaken . . . "]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/04/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ninth-circuit%e2%80%99s-national-standard-for-internet-obscenity-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Why the 5th Circuit is Correct About Lawrence</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-why-the-5th-circuit-is-correct-about-lawrence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-why-the-5th-circuit-is-correct-about-lawrence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:02:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Reliable Consultants v Earle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Williams v Morgan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1928</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/43-2_Iguchi.pdf"><em>Satisfying Lawrence: The Fifth Circuit Strikes Ban on Sex Toy Sales</em></a>
Jamie Iguchi, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 655 (2009)

"At its core, the disagreement between the circuits turns on the scope of the right announced in Lawrence and the standard of review it requires."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-why-the-5th-circuit-is-correct-about-lawrence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Rabbit&#8221; Hunting in the Supreme Court: The Constitutionality of State Prohibitions of Sex Toy Sales Following Lawrence v. Texas</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/15/rabbit-hunting-in-the-supreme-court-the-constitutionality-of-state-prohibitions-of-sex-toy-sales-following-lawrence-v-texas/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/15/rabbit-hunting-in-the-supreme-court-the-constitutionality-of-state-prohibitions-of-sex-toy-sales-following-lawrence-v-texas/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:13:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Reliable Consultants v Earle]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Williams v Morgan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1706</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["This Note . . . supports the Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of Lawrence in Williams v. Attorney General of Alabama as a means of limiting the Lawrence decision and preserving traditional state authority to democratically police the borders of accepted sexual behavior in preservation of public morality."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/15/rabbit-hunting-in-the-supreme-court-the-constitutionality-of-state-prohibitions-of-sex-toy-sales-following-lawrence-v-texas/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

