<?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: Sexting</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/topic-sexting/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>Law Review: How the state can prevent unintended consequences in punishing sexting by minors</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/12/15/law-review-how-the-state-can-prevent-unintended-consequences-in-punishing-sexting-by-minors/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/12/15/law-review-how-the-state-can-prevent-unintended-consequences-in-punishing-sexting-by-minors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 2010 23:01:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Effects (Porn): Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["Minors and young adults who engage in sexting face serious, and often unanticipated, psychological and reputational consequences. While the current state response to sexting between minors and between young adults is inappropriate, the state can intervene in several innovative ways to educate minors and young adults about the consequences of primary and secondary sexting, impose appropriate penalties on minors who engage in primary and secondary sexting, and recognize and support appropriate remedies for minors and young adults who are victims of secondary sexting."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/12/15/law-review-how-the-state-can-prevent-unintended-consequences-in-punishing-sexting-by-minors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Legal Periodical: Sensible Legal Approaches to Teenagers&#8217; Exchange of Self-Produced Pornography</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/19/legal-periodical-sensible-legal-approaches-to-teenagers-exchange-of-self-produced-pornography/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/19/legal-periodical-sensible-legal-approaches-to-teenagers-exchange-of-self-produced-pornography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 21:35:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2502</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em><a href="http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/25_1/0555-0596%20Eraker_Web.pdf">Stemming Sexting: Sensible Legal Approaches to Teenagers’ Exchange of Self-Produced Pornography</a></em>
Elizabeth C. Eraker, 25 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 555 (2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/11/19/legal-periodical-sensible-legal-approaches-to-teenagers-exchange-of-self-produced-pornography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Case highlights inconsistency between N.Y. statutory rape laws, federal child porn laws</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:57:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2293</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202464239348">Law.com</a>: "A federal appeals panel has thrown out a child pornography conviction that was based on explicit photographs texted by a 17-year-old to her field-hockey coach. The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals held there was no evidence that defendant Todd Broxmeyer asked 17-year-old 'A.W.' to take the pictures, and therefore no evidence that he 'produced' them as defined by the federal child pornography statutes." &#124; <a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9ea04a55-5ad3-43fd-9a1c-abe4fb26fae1/1/doc/09-1457-cr_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/9ea04a55-5ad3-43fd-9a1c-abe4fb26fae1/1/hilite/"><em>USA v. Broxmeyer</em></a>, No. 09-1457-cr (2nd Cir. Aug. 3, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/08/04/case-highlights-inconsistency-between-n-y-statutory-rape-laws-federal-child-porn-laws/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit: Prosecutor’s offer of leniency to teens for sexting is unconstitutional retaliation</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/3rd-circuit-prosecutor%e2%80%99s-offer-of-leniency-to-teens-for-sexting-is-unconstitutional-retaliation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/3rd-circuit-prosecutor%e2%80%99s-offer-of-leniency-to-teens-for-sexting-is-unconstitutional-retaliation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:39:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 3rd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Parental Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2195</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092144p.pdf"><em>Miller v. Mitchell</em></a>, No. 09-2144 (3rd Cir.  March 17, 2010)?

]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/03/17/3rd-circuit-prosecutor%e2%80%99s-offer-of-leniency-to-teens-for-sexting-is-unconstitutional-retaliation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: Solutions to the Legal Dilemma Caused by Sexting</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-solutions-to-the-legal-dilemma-caused-by-sexting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-solutions-to-the-legal-dilemma-caused-by-sexting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sentencing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1926</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Average Teenager or Sex Offender? Solutions to the Legal Dilemma Caused by Sexting</em>
Shannon Shafron-Perez, 26 J. Marshall J. Computer &#38; Info. L. 431 (2009)

"This Comment broadly considers the failure of the law to adapt to developments in technology and communication, untangles the different approaches taken by a sample of states, and considers which legal remedy is most appropriate."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/29/law-review-solutions-to-the-legal-dilemma-caused-by-sexting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ohio Supreme Court: Law banning electronic transmission of pornography is limited to &#8220;personally directed&#8221; electronic communications</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/27/ohio-supreme-court-holds-that-law-banning-electronic-trasmission-of-pornography-is-limited-to-personally-directed-electronic-communications/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/27/ohio-supreme-court-holds-that-law-banning-electronic-trasmission-of-pornography-is-limited-to-personally-directed-electronic-communications/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 21:24:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Ohio]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Scienter Requirement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Am Bookselleers v Cordray]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1920</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-149.pdf"><em>Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Cordray</em></a>, Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-149 (Ohio Jan. 27, 2010)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/27/ohio-supreme-court-holds-that-law-banning-electronic-trasmission-of-pornography-is-limited-to-personally-directed-electronic-communications/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;Sexting&#8217; Case to Take Center Stage at 3rd Circuit</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/14/sexting-case-to-take-center-stage-at-3rd-circuit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/14/sexting-case-to-take-center-stage-at-3rd-circuit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:34:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 3rd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: ACLU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1844</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The case is the first in the country to challenge the constitutionality of bringing child pornography charges in the context of sexting."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/14/sexting-case-to-take-center-stage-at-3rd-circuit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: When Children Become Child Pornographers and the Lolita Effect Undermines the Law</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/13/law-review-when-children-become-child-pornographers-and-the-lolita-effect-undermines-the-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/13/law-review-when-children-become-child-pornographers-and-the-lolita-effect-undermines-the-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:21:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1834</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<strong><em><a href="http://commlaw.cua.edu/articles/v18/18.1/Sexting%20-%2012-11-09%20to%20Publisher.pdf">Sex, Cell Phones, Privacy, and the First Amendment: When Children Become Child Pornographers and the Lolita Effect Undermines the Law</a></em>
Clay Calvert, 18 CommLaw Conspectus 1 (2009)</strong>

"It is a sure-fire recipe for legal trouble: combine hormone-raging teens with image-transmitting technologies, and then stir them together in a sex-saturated society replete with outdated laws and a criminal justice system that never could have anticipated such a combustible confluence of forces. Signs and symptoms of this salacious problem are cropping up across the United States."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2010/01/13/law-review-when-children-become-child-pornographers-and-the-lolita-effect-undermines-the-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Sex and Cell Phones Collide: Inside the Prosecution of a Teen Sexting Case</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/06/when-sex-and-cell-phones-collide-inside-the-prosecution-of-a-teen-sexting-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/06/when-sex-and-cell-phones-collide-inside-the-prosecution-of-a-teen-sexting-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:32:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1464</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.firstamendment.com/articles/AlpertArticle.pdf">When Sex and Cell Phones Collide: Inside the Prosecution of a Teen Sexting Case</a>
Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert, 32 Hastings Comm. &#38; Ent L.J. 1 (2009)

"To provide a better and unique perspective on sexting and the legal issues it raises for teenagers, this article provides an inside and in-depth examination of one sexting case."]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/11/06/when-sex-and-cell-phones-collide-inside-the-prosecution-of-a-teen-sexting-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Sexting&#8221; and the First Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/09/sexting-and-the-first-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/09/sexting-and-the-first-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 20:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Sexting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: New York v Ferber]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Osborne v Ohio]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=1344</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John A. Humbach, <em>'Sexting' and the First Amendment</em> (September 9, 2009). Available at SSRN: <a href="http://ssrn.com/abstract=1470819">http://ssrn.com/abstract=1470819</a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2009/10/09/sexting-and-the-first-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

