<?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; ZZ: U.S. v. Stevens</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/tag/zz-u-s-v-stevens/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>5th Circuit: Video of minor in tanning salon not child pornography</title>
		<link>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/28/5th-circuit-video-of-minor-in-tanning-salon-not-child-pornography/</link>
		<comments>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/28/5th-circuit-video-of-minor-in-tanning-salon-not-child-pornography/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Feb 2011 18:32:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Abstracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 5th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Child Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Minors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Stevens]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/?p=2540</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Houston Chronicle: "In a decision released Friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the video discovered on Alan Ray Steen's camera was not sexually explicit and didn't rise to the federal legal definitions that would have made the video warrant the charge." &#124; <em><a href="http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/10/10-50114-CR0.wpd.pdf">United States of America v. Steven</a></em>, No. 10-50114 (5th Cir. Feb. 25, 2011)]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.communitydefense.org/wordpress/2011/02/28/5th-circuit-video-of-minor-in-tanning-salon-not-child-pornography/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

