<?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; Topic: Child Pornography</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-child-pornography/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>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>5th Circuit: Utah law prof. to argue apportionment issue in child porn restitution case</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/02/5th-utah-law-prof-to-argue-apportionment-issue-in-child-porn-restitution-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/02/5th-utah-law-prof-to-argue-apportionment-issue-in-child-porn-restitution-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 17:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: USA v. Amy Unknown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://today.law.utah.edu/2012/05/cassell-to-argue-before-fifth-circuit-in-child-pornography-case/">ULaw Today</a>: The case involves an important issue of whether child pornography victims can recover all of their losses (e.g., psychological counseling and lost income) from one defendant or must apportion their losses out among multiple defendants.   &#124; USA v. Amy Unknown, No. 09-41238 (5th Cir.) <a href="http://today.law.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/opening-brief.pdf">Opening Brief</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/02/5th-utah-law-prof-to-argue-apportionment-issue-in-child-porn-restitution-case/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>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>En Banc 5th Circuit to rehear restitution case for child porn victim</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/31/en-banc-5th-circuit-to-rehear-restitution-case-for-child-porn-victim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/31/en-banc-5th-circuit-to-rehear-restitution-case-for-child-porn-victim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 22:06:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: In re Amy Unknown]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2669</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://howappealing.law.com/013112.html#044521">How Appealing</a> quotes and links to the <a href="http://www.statesman.com/news/texas/court-to-weigh-restitution-for-child-porn-victim-2136339.html">AP</a> and the earlier 5th Circuit opinion: A federal appeals court in New Orleans has agreed to rehear two cases in which a victim of child pornography sought restitution from men who viewed sexually explicit photographs of her on the Internet." &#124; <em>In re: Amy Unknown.</em>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/31/en-banc-5th-circuit-to-rehear-restitution-case-for-child-porn-victim/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>Second Circuit panel reverses child porn restitution award to &#8220;Amy&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:43:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Restitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Aumais]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2623</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2011/09/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy.html">Sentencing Law and Policy:</a>: The Second Circuit has today issued an important new opinion in the on-going saga concerning whether and how the kids victimized by being featured in illegal child pornography can secure restitution awards from defendants who downloaded these pictures via the internet.  The panel opinion in <em>US v. Aumais</em>, No. 10-3160 (2d Cir. Sept. 8, 2011) (<a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4a1e8328-fb5b-47a0-aa35-9f97fc90fb17/1/doc/10-3160_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/4a1e8328-fb5b-47a0-aa35-9f97fc90fb17/1/hilite/">available here</a>), gets started this way . . . 
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/second-circuit-panel-reverses-child-porn-restitution-award-to-amy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ohio Supreme Court mulls child-porn evidence dispute</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/ohio-supreme-court-mulls-child-porn-evidence-dispute/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/ohio-supreme-court-mulls-child-porn-evidence-dispute/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:47:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Ohio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Search and Seizure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Warrants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Ohio v. Gould]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2614</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.toledoblade.com/Courts/2011/09/08/Top-Ohio-court-mulls-child-porn-evidence-dispute.html">Toledo Blade</a>: How long can a computer hard drive be left behind before it is considered abandoned and subject to search by police without a warrant? That was the question before the Ohio Supreme Court Wednesday as it weighed the child rape, child pornography, and other convictions of Dennis Gould . . . &#124; Hat tip: <a href="http://howappealing.law.com/090811.html#042761">How Appealing</a> for providing a link to the <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/resultsbycasenumber.asp?year=2010&#038;number=1315">documents</a>, <a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/PIO/oralArguments/11/0907/0907.asp#OA101315">summary of the case</a>, and <a href="http://www.supremecourtofohiomedialibrary.org/Media.aspx?fileId=132587">video</a> of the arguments.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/09/08/ohio-supreme-court-mulls-child-porn-evidence-dispute/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Federal Judge Blocks Alaskan Anti-Child-Porn Law</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/07/06/federal-judge-blocks-alaskan-anti-child-porn-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/07/06/federal-judge-blocks-alaskan-anti-child-porn-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alaska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Sullivan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ A federal judge has blocked a state law meant to prevent the spread of child pornography, saying it violates the First Amendment and is too broad in its scope. U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Beistline permanently barred enforcement of Senate Bill 22 . . .  &#124; <a href="http://www.akclu.org/InTheCourts/AmBooksell.Order.GrantMSJ.2010.06.30.pdf">Order: <em>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Sullivan</em>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/07/06/federal-judge-blocks-alaskan-anti-child-porn-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

