<?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: Internet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-internet/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>Federal Judge: Utah&#8217;s Harm to Minors Internet Law is Unconstitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/18/federal-judge-utahs-harm-to-minors-internet-law-is-unconstitutional/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/18/federal-judge-utahs-harm-to-minors-internet-law-is-unconstitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 17:29:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Utah]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet Service Providers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Florence v. Shurtleff]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2700</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765576910/Judge-overturns-Utahs-Internet-law.html">Deseret News</a>: The Utah law sought to make website operators or content providers liable for any material that the state deems harmful to minors. &#124; Opinion: <a href="http://www.acluutah.org/Florence_Order_051612.pdf">Florence v. Shurtleff</a>, No. 2:05-cv-00485-DB-SA]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2012/05/18/federal-judge-utahs-harm-to-minors-internet-law-is-unconstitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<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>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>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>
		<item>
		<title>7th Circuit: Porn on Work Computer Is Grounds for Firing</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/05/06/court-says-porn-on-work-computer-is-grounds-for-firing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/05/06/court-says-porn-on-work-computer-is-grounds-for-firing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 20:59:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 7th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Wisconsin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Zellner v. Harrick]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2575</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Kravets at <a href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/05/view-porn-be-fired/">Wired.com</a> (May 5, 2011): A federal appeals court is issuing a clear warning to employees: Violate your employer’s computer-use policy and be fired. &#124; <em><a href="http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/7N0XOUKU.pdf">Zellner v. Harrick</a></em>, No. 10-2729 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/05/06/court-says-porn-on-work-computer-is-grounds-for-firing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oregon Senate votes to close loophole in child pornography law</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/25/oregon-senate-votes-to-close-loophole-in-child-pornography-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/25/oregon-senate-votes-to-close-loophole-in-child-pornography-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 17:26:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Oregon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Oregon v. Barger]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2572</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/04/oregon_senate_votes_to_close_l.html">Oregonian</a>: In response to a Oregon Supreme Court ruling this year, the Oregon Senate voted today to make it a crime to view child pornography online for free. &#124; <em><a href="http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S058345.htm">Oregon v. Barger</a></em>, No. CA A138678 (Ore. Jan 6, 2011) &#124; <a href="http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/SB803/">Senate Bill 803</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/04/25/oregon-senate-votes-to-close-loophole-in-child-pornography-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ICANN grants .xxx but delays opening domain gates</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/03/18/icann-grants-xxx-but-delays-opening-domain-gates/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/03/18/icann-grants-xxx-but-delays-opening-domain-gates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2553</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hm9DAyztDHH4QEGIWMhtKESl31yw?docId=CNG.cb9a703546a716b6ea833e7994a082c9.9b1">AFP</a>: The group in charge of Internet addresses on Friday opened the door for websites ending with ".xxx" but delayed deciding whether to open the floodgates for other suffixes.
]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/03/18/icann-grants-xxx-but-delays-opening-domain-gates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sweden: More effective and better protection is needed for children online</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/18/sweden-more-effective-and-better-protection-is-needed-for-children-online/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/18/sweden-more-effective-and-better-protection-is-needed-for-children-online/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:54:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Studies: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Studies: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Country: Sweden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (Porn): Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2511</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["A national Swedish evaluation study has highlighted the need for a chain of interventions to offer children who have experienced violence against their mother the right level of support to work through their experiences. There is also frequently a lack of structured risk assessments for identifying children who are at continued risk of exposure to violence, reveal researchers from the universities of Gothenburg, Karlstad, Uppsala and Örebro."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/01/18/sweden-more-effective-and-better-protection-is-needed-for-children-online/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

