<?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: Pornography Production</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-pornography-production/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>IN: Crime to surreptitiously videotape one&#8217;s fiancee naked?</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/29/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/29/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:37:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Indiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2505</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10291003ewn.pdf"><em>Chiszar v. Indiana</em></a>, No. No. 91A04-1004-CR-290 (Ind. App. Oct. 29, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/10/29/in-crime-to-surreptitiously-videotape-ones-fiancee-naked/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: Federal statute criminalizing production of child pornography does not exceed Congress&#8217;s constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Commerce Clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2371</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/10/06/092787U.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Lemke</em></a>, No. 09-2787, 2010 WL 2219063 (8th Cir. June 4, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/06/04/8th-circuit-federal-statute-criminalizing-production-of-child-pornography-does-not-exceed-congresss-constitutional-authority-under-the-commerce-clause-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Circuit: Crime of &#8220;producing&#8221; visual depiction of the sexual exploitation of a minor includes transmission via webcam</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/30/5th-circuit-crime-of-producing-visual-depiction-of-the-sexual-exploitation-of-a-minor-includes-transmission-via-webcam/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/30/5th-circuit-crime-of-producing-visual-depiction-of-the-sexual-exploitation-of-a-minor-includes-transmission-via-webcam/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Louisiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Web Camera]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2199</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C09/09-30487.0.wpd.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Nichols</em></a>, No. 09-30487, 2010 WL 1286846 (5th Cir. March 30, 2010)

Crime of "producing" visual depiction of the sexual exploitation of a minor includes transmission via webcam.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/30/5th-circuit-crime-of-producing-visual-depiction-of-the-sexual-exploitation-of-a-minor-includes-transmission-via-webcam/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>AZ Court of Appeals: Downloading child porn constitutes &#8220;duplicating&#8221; rather than &#8220;receiving&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/30/az-court-of-appeals-downloading-child-porn-constitutes-duplicating-rather-than-receiving/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/30/az-court-of-appeals-downloading-child-porn-constitutes-duplicating-rather-than-receiving/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2197</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.apltwo.ct.state.az.us/Decisions/cr20090090opn.pdf"><em>Arizona v. Windsor</em></a>, No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0090, 2010 WL 1215064 (Ariz. App. Div. 2, March 30, 2010)

Remote downloading of child pornography constitutes "duplication" rather than "receiving."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/30/az-court-of-appeals-downloading-child-porn-constitutes-duplicating-rather-than-receiving/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>6th Circuit: Homemade child pornography does not fall outside purview of congressional legislative power</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/08/6th-circuit-homemade-child-pornography-does-not-fall-outside-purview-of-congressional-legislative-power/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/08/6th-circuit-homemade-child-pornography-does-not-fall-outside-purview-of-congressional-legislative-power/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 6th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Interstate Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Gonzales v Raich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Bowers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Corp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0029p-06.pdf"><em>U.S. v. Bowers</em></a>, No. 08-2412, (6th Cir. Feb. 8, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/02/08/6th-circuit-homemade-child-pornography-does-not-fall-outside-purview-of-congressional-legislative-power/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>8th Circuit: &#8220;Travelled in interstate commerce&#8221; means &#8220;crossed state lines&#8221; in child porn prosecution and mistake of age defense was properly precluded</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/29/8th-circuit-travelled-in-interstate-commerce-means-crossed-state-lines-in-child-porn-prosecution-and-mistake-of-age-defense-properly-precluded/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/29/8th-circuit-travelled-in-interstate-commerce-means-crossed-state-lines-in-child-porn-prosecution-and-mistake-of-age-defense-properly-precluded/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Dec 2009 23:42:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 8th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Interstate Commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Mistake of Age Defense]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v McCloud]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/09/12/091520P.pdf"><em>U.S. v. McCloud</em></a>, No. 09-1520, 2009 WL 5092941 (8th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/12/29/8th-circuit-travelled-in-interstate-commerce-means-crossed-state-lines-in-child-porn-prosecution-and-mistake-of-age-defense-properly-precluded/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>M.D. Ala.: Possession of child porn is not lesser-included offense of production</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/23/m-d-ala-possession-of-child-porn-is-not-lesser-included-offense-of-production/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/23/m-d-ala-possession-of-child-porn-is-not-lesser-included-offense-of-production/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:37:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Alabama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Double Jeopardy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: US v Dean]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1762</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="https://ecf.almd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cr0065-49"><em>U.S. v. Dean</em></a>, No. 2:08cr65-MHT, 2009 WL 4023127 (M.D. Ala. Nov. 23, 2009)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/23/m-d-ala-possession-of-child-porn-is-not-lesser-included-offense-of-production/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MIM Report Shows How the Explosion of Hardcore Adult Pornography on the Internet and Elsewhere is Contributing to the Sexual Exploitation of Children</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/25/mim-report-shows-how-the-explosion-of-hardcore-adult-pornography-on-the-internet-and-elsewhere-is-contributing-to-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/25/mim-report-shows-how-the-explosion-of-hardcore-adult-pornography-on-the-internet-and-elsewhere-is-contributing-to-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 23:19:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Studies: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Studies: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (Porn): Addiction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Community Standards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Victimization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Morality in Media has compiled information from hundreds of news articles and from court cases, social science studies, books, Congressional testimony, and other sources that show how the explosion of hardcore adult pornography on the Internet and elsewhere is contributing to the sexual exploitation of children. The works cited in the report were published from 1980 to the present."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/09/25/mim-report-shows-how-the-explosion-of-hardcore-adult-pornography-on-the-internet-and-elsewhere-is-contributing-to-the-sexual-exploitation-of-children/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>N.H. Supreme Court: &#8220;Nonobscene production&#8221; of sexually explicit films is not prostitution</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/12/04/n-h-supreme-court-nonobscene-production-of-sexually-explicit-films-is-not-prostitution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/12/04/n-h-supreme-court-nonobscene-production-of-sexually-explicit-films-is-not-prostitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:42:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New Hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Prostitution]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[New Hampshire v. Theriault, No. 2007-601, 960 A.2d 687 (N.H. Dec. 4, 2008)

Supreme Court of New Hampshire holds that a statute prohibiting as prostitution the "nonobscene production" of sexually explicit films is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2008/12/04/n-h-supreme-court-nonobscene-production-of-sexually-explicit-films-is-not-prostitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

