<?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: US Supreme</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/court-us-supreme/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>Will Alabama’s criminalization of sex toys reach the Supreme Court?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/15/will-alabama%e2%80%99s-criminalization-of-sex-toys-reach-the-supreme-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/15/will-alabama%e2%80%99s-criminalization-of-sex-toys-reach-the-supreme-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Morality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alabama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: 1568 Montgomery Highway Inc v City of Hoover]]></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=1207</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2009/20090915.pdf"><em>1568 Montgomery Highway, Inc. v. City of Hoover</em></a>, No. 1070531 (Ala. Sept. 11, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/15/will-alabama%e2%80%99s-criminalization-of-sex-toys-reach-the-supreme-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Roger Scruton: Pornography and the Courts</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/02/09/roger-scruton-pornography-and-the-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/02/09/roger-scruton-pornography-and-the-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2009 06:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Witherspoon Institute]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=40</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2009.02.09.001.pdart">Public Discourse</a>: "The idea that pornography is “speech,” within the meaning of the first amendment, and thereby protected by the Constitution, is so absurd that it is hard for an outsider to see how American judges have been persuaded to accept it again and again."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/02/09/roger-scruton-pornography-and-the-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>United States v. Williams: Supremely Sensible</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/05/22/united-states-v-williams-supremely-sensible/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/05/22/united-states-v-williams-supremely-sensible/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 23:25:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: US Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjM5ZDcxMTdjNDE3ZGQ1NTU4NWQwYjMxYjZiYjlhOGY=">National Review</a>: "In a refreshingly lopsided 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld a federal law that prohibits pandering child pornography. Doing so, the court restores a measure of common sense to its perplexing obscenity jurisprudence."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/05/22/united-states-v-williams-supremely-sensible/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

