<?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: Indecency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-indecency/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>U.S. Supreme Court considers FCC indecency enforcement authority</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/10/u-s-supreme-court-considers-fcc-indecency-enforcement-authority/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/10/u-s-supreme-court-considers-fcc-indecency-enforcement-authority/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: FCC v. Fox News Television Stations]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2660</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguements in the <em>FCC v. Fox Television Stations</em>, No. 10-1293. The question considered: Whether the Federal Communications Commission's current indecency-enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Sotomayor, J., recused).  Court filings in the litigation can be found at <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/federal-communications-commission-v-fox-television-stations-inc/">SCOTUS Blog</a>. Links to Related media reports discussing the litigation can be <a href="http://news.google.com/news/more?pz=1&#038;cf=all&#038;ned=us&#038;ncl=dEwV5YEyNNy8RRMGcUpmcLAwA4yEM">found here</a>.  ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/01/10/u-s-supreme-court-considers-fcc-indecency-enforcement-authority/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High court to review TV decency</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/26/high-court-to-review-tv-decency/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/26/high-court-to-review-tv-decency/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Aug 2011 21:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Nudity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2609</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1418534">One News Now</a>: The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear two cases involving broadcast indecency. One case deals with foul language aired during the January 2003 broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards, and the second concerns nudity. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/08/26/high-court-to-review-tv-decency/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Periodical: Evaluating the Government Interest Behind Broadcast Indecency Regulation</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/09/legal-periodical-evaluating-the-government-interest-behind-broadcast-indecency-regulation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/09/legal-periodical-evaluating-the-government-interest-behind-broadcast-indecency-regulation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Nov 2010 21:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>The Bogeyman of “Harm to Children”: Evaluating the Government Interest Behind Broadcast Indecency Regulation</em>
Jessica C. Collins, 85 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1225 (2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/09/legal-periodical-evaluating-the-government-interest-behind-broadcast-indecency-regulation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Circuit panel: Indecent exposure is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude in California</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/10/9th-circuit-panel-indecent-exposure-is-not-categorically-a-crime-of-moral-turpitude-in-california/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/10/9th-circuit-panel-indecent-exposure-is-not-categorically-a-crime-of-moral-turpitude-in-california/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 18:39:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2164</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/02/10/06-70219.pdf">Nunez v. Holder</a></em>, No. 06-70219 (9th Cir. Feb.  10, 2010)

Indecent exposure is not categorically a crime of moral turpitude in California.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/10/9th-circuit-panel-indecent-exposure-is-not-categorically-a-crime-of-moral-turpitude-in-california/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

