<?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: Obscenity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-obscenity/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>Legal Periodical: Countering the Dangers of Online Pornography</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/15/legal-periodical-countering-the-dangers-of-online-pornography/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/15/legal-periodical-countering-the-dangers-of-online-pornography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Nov 2010 21:34:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Country: United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2500</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Julie Hörnle, <em>Countering the Dangers of Online Pornography – Shrewd Regulation of Lewd Content?</em> (October 1, 2010). Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 65/2010. Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1686136">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1686136</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/15/legal-periodical-countering-the-dangers-of-online-pornography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Periodical: Comparative Legal Approaches to Pornographic Obscenity by the United States and the United Kingdom</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/01/legal-periodical-comparative-legal-approaches-to-pornographic-obscenity-by-the-united-states-and-the-united-kingdom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/01/legal-periodical-comparative-legal-approaches-to-pornographic-obscenity-by-the-united-states-and-the-united-kingdom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 21:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Country: United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Two Nations, One Web: Comparative Legal Approaches to Pornographic Obscenity by the United States and the United Kingdom</em>
William T. Goldberg, 90 B.U. L. Rev. 2121 (2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/01/legal-periodical-comparative-legal-approaches-to-pornographic-obscenity-by-the-united-states-and-the-united-kingdom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Judge enjoins new Mass. obscenity law</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/judge-enjoins-new-mass-obscenity-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/judge-enjoins-new-mass-obscenity-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Massachusetts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Coakley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/20101027.pdf"><em>American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Coakley</em></a>, No. 10-11165-RWZ (D. Mass. Oct. 26, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/26/judge-enjoins-new-mass-obscenity-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Should the obscenity standard for internet speech be national, or local?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/02/should-the-obscenity-standard-for-internet-speech-be-national-or-local/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/02/should-the-obscenity-standard-for-internet-speech-be-national-or-local/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 21:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Little]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20100302.html">FindLaw</a>: "Obscenity law has always had weak underpinnings. Now, due to the advent of the Internet, it may be toppled entirely, if courts truly begin to take seriously the due process and First Amendment problems it raises. If it is not toppled, then significant injustices – like the injustice perpetrated in the Paul Little case – will only continue."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/02/should-the-obscenity-standard-for-internet-speech-be-national-or-local/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Eleventh Circuit Rejects Ninth Circuit’s National-Standard-for-Internet-Obscenity Decision</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/04/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ninth-circuit%e2%80%99s-national-standard-for-internet-obscenity-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/04/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ninth-circuit%e2%80%99s-national-standard-for-internet-obscenity-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:21:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Ashcroft v ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Kilbride]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Little]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://volokh.com/2010/02/04/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ninth-circuits-national-standard-for-internet-obscenity-decision/">Eugene Volokh reports</a>: "<em><a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf" target="_blank">United States v. Little</a></em> concludes that Internet obscenity distribution prosecutions may rely on the community standard of the place in which the material was distributed — which means the government can try to download the material in the most restrictive community, and prosecute the distributor there. This may well be correct, given the Court’s decision in <em>Ashcroft v. ACLU</em> (I); and the Ninth Circuit’s contrary decision in <em>U</em><em>nited States v. Kilbride</em> might well be mistaken . . . "]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/04/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ninth-circuit%e2%80%99s-national-standard-for-internet-obscenity-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit reject&#8217;s 9th Circuit&#8217;s Kilbride decision and upholds application of local community standards to Internet obscenity prosecution</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/02/11th-circuit-rejects-9th-circuits-kilbride-decision-and-upholds-application-of-local-community-standards-to-internet-obscenity-prosecution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/02/11th-circuit-rejects-9th-circuits-kilbride-decision-and-upholds-application-of-local-community-standards-to-internet-obscenity-prosecution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 22:29:49 +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[State: Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Kilbride]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Little]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1937</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/unpub/ops/200815964.pdf"><em>United States v. Little</em></a>, No. 08-15964 (11th Cir. Feb. 2, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/02/11th-circuit-rejects-9th-circuits-kilbride-decision-and-upholds-application-of-local-community-standards-to-internet-obscenity-prosecution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: The Constitutional Status of Moral Legislation</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/the-constitutional-status-of-moral-legislation-john-lawrence-hill-98-ky-l-j-1-2010-an-excerpt-is-below-to-view-the-full-text-please-use-westlaw-lexis-a-law-library-or-alternative-source-t/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/the-constitutional-status-of-moral-legislation-john-lawrence-hill-98-ky-l-j-1-2010-an-excerpt-is-below-to-view-the-full-text-please-use-westlaw-lexis-a-law-library-or-alternative-source-t/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:18:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1852</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>The Constitutional Status of Moral Legislation</em>
John Lawrence Hill, 98 Ky. L.J. 1 (2010)

"This Article argues that, in seeking to protect the private activities of gays and lesbians, liberals from Hart on have thought it necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater by maintaining that the state may never regulate on the basis of 'private morals.' The better conclusion is that society has now reached a general consensus that it is wrong to single out one type of sexual activity and mark for punishment the class of people who engage in it. This, indeed, is the meaning of <em>Lawrence v. Texas</em>, and not the more expansive claim that Lawrence declares the end of morals legislation."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/the-constitutional-status-of-moral-legislation-john-lawrence-hill-98-ky-l-j-1-2010-an-excerpt-is-below-to-view-the-full-text-please-use-westlaw-lexis-a-law-library-or-alternative-source-t/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Seeing It, Knowing It (Obscenity)</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/law-review-seeing-it-knowing-it-obscenity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/law-review-seeing-it-knowing-it-obscenity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Miller Test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://colloquy.law.northwestern.edu/main/2009/12/seeing-it-knowing-it.html">Seeing It, Knowing It</a></em>
Elizabeth M. Glazer, 104 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 217 (2009)

"However, the 'more modest claim' that McDonald purports to make is, in fact, the claim made in my essay, namely, to 'refin[e]—but not overturn—the obscenity test set forth in <em>Miller</em>' so that it distinguishes between sex and sexual orientation."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/15/law-review-seeing-it-knowing-it-obscenity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Should Texas&#8217;s Former Ban on Obscene Device Promotion Pass Constitutional Muster Under a Murky Lawrence?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jan 2010 22:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sex Toys]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Lawrence v Texas]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1785</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Laura M. Clark, 41 St. Mary's L.J. 177 (2009)

"Part IV will analyze relevant U.S. Supreme Court holdings and Texas cases, apply Lawrence to the Texas and Alabama statutes, and examine whether the Texas statute might be changed to pass constitutional muster."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/06/law-review-should-texass-former-ban-on-obscene-device-promotion-pass-constitutional-muster-under-a-murky-lawrence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>11th Circuit obscenity case tests community standards on the internet</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/30/11th-circuit-obscenity-case-tests-community-standards-on-the-internet/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/30/11th-circuit-obscenity-case-tests-community-standards-on-the-internet/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:53:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Articles: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 11th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Little]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202435052384">Fulton County Daily Report</a>: "The federal judges who on Thursday heard the appeal of the movie producer, known as Max Hardcore, aren't being asked to make the same judgments the jury did . . . the judges are being asked to decide some of the heaviest issues in the area of obscenity law, such as whether the government should criminalize adult films purchased over the Internet and viewed in the privacy of the home, and whether a Tampa jury should apply its own mores to materials available all over the country."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/30/11th-circuit-obscenity-case-tests-community-standards-on-the-internet/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

