<?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; Regulation (SOB): Advertising</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/regulation-sob-advertising/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>9th Circuit: Nevada has right to restrict brothel advertising</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/9th-circuit-nevada-has-right-to-restrict-brothel-advertising/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/9th-circuit-nevada-has-right-to-restrict-brothel-advertising/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:32:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Nevada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Prostitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Trafficking]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Coyote Publishing, Inc. v. Miller, No. 07-16633 (9th Cir. March 11, 2010)
At issue in this case is whether Nevada's "restrictions on advertising by legal brothels" violate the First Amendment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/11/9th-circuit-nevada-has-right-to-restrict-brothel-advertising/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New legislation would rid streets of obscene billboards</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/01/new-legislation-would-rid-streets-of-obscene-billboards/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/01/new-legislation-would-rid-streets-of-obscene-billboards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:56:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Ordinances]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1304</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["For some time now, I have been very concerned with the explicit billboards along 8 Mile Road promoting topless bars and other sexually-oriented businesses . . . Today, Michigan is one step closer to ridding our communities of these inappropriate billboards. Recently, the Senate has cooperated in a bipartisan fashion to pass my legislation . . . Senate Bill 266 would restrict the kind of suggestive and inappropriate images we now see on billboards."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/01/new-legislation-would-rid-streets-of-obscene-billboards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>SC: Federal judge strikes statute regulating &#8220;adult business&#8221; billboards</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/13/sc-federal-judge-strikes-statute-regulating-adult-business-billboards/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/13/sc-federal-judge-strikes-statute-regulating-adult-business-billboards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 20:49:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: South Carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1128</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2009/20090818.pdf"><em>Carolina Pride, Inc. v. McMaster</em></a>, No. 3:08-04016-CMC (D.S.C. Aug. 13, 2009): A federal judge held that "a South Carolina law limiting the placement of billboards advertising adult businesses is unconstitutional." The Sign Statute at issue, S.C. Code Ann. § 57-25-145 (enacted in 2006), "prohibits most businesses which offer sexually-oriented materials or entertainment from using any 'offpremises, outdoor advertising . . . located within one mile of a public highway.'" Grandfathered signs, such as those at issue in this case, were given until February 2009 to come into compliance with the law. Carolina Pride sued and was granted a preliminary injunction--and the government appealed.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/08/13/sc-federal-judge-strikes-statute-regulating-adult-business-billboards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>KS district court grants injunction against enforcement of signage ordinance</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/06/26/ks-district-court-grants-injunction-against-enforcement-of-signage-ordinance/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/06/26/ks-district-court-grants-injunction-against-enforcement-of-signage-ordinance/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 20:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Kansas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=861</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Abilene Retail No. 30 Inc., d/b/a Lion's Den Adult Superstore vs. Six</em>, No. 09-2195-JAR, 2009 WL 1850597 (D. Kan. June 26, 2009)

Kansas district court grants preliminary injunction against the enforcement of state sexually oriented business signage ordinance.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/06/26/ks-district-court-grants-injunction-against-enforcement-of-signage-ordinance/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>April 1997: &#8220;Dallas, Texas: An Analysis of the Effects of SOBs on the Surrounding Neighborhoods&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/1997/04/29/dallas-tx-an-analysis-of-the-effects-of-sobs-on-the-surrounding-neighborhoods/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/1997/04/29/dallas-tx-an-analysis-of-the-effects-of-sobs-on-the-surrounding-neighborhoods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 1997 23:47:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Studies: Sexually Oriented Businesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Studies: Sexually Oriented Businesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Economic Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Time]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/landuse/html/txdallas.html">An Analysis of the Effects of SOBs on the Surrounding Neighborhoods</a>: "We found that SOBs have both a real and a perceived negative impact on surrounding properties. In such areas, crime rates are higher and property values are lower and/or the properties take longer to lease or sell."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/1997/04/29/dallas-tx-an-analysis-of-the-effects-of-sobs-on-the-surrounding-neighborhoods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>September 1993: St. Croix County, Wisconsin Planning Department Regulation of Adult Entertainment Establishments</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/1993/09/01/st-croix-county-wi-regulation-of-adult-entertainment-establishments/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/1993/09/01/st-croix-county-wi-regulation-of-adult-entertainment-establishments/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 1993 22:44:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Studies: Sexually Oriented Businesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Studies: Sexually Oriented Businesses]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (SOB): Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation (SOB): Zoning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Wisconsin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=335</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.communitydefense.org/cdcdocs/landuse/html/wistcroixcounty.htm">Regulation of Adult Entertainment Establishments</a>: "It is recommended that St. Croix County adopt the dispersal technique . . . Adult entertainment establishments should be permitted in the Commercial or Restricted Commercial districts with a Special Exception Permit as part of a new Adult Entertainment Overlay District."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/1993/09/01/st-croix-county-wi-regulation-of-adult-entertainment-establishments/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

