<?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>ADF Alliance Alert &#187; Topic: Indecency</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.alliancealert.org/tag/topic-indecency/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.alliancealert.org</link>
	<description>news from the frontlines of the culture war</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 23:12:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>U.S. Supreme Court justices leery of FOX request to relax broadcast decency standards</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/11/u-s-supreme-court-justices-leery-of-fox-request-to-relax-broadcast-decency-standards/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/11/u-s-supreme-court-justices-leery-of-fox-request-to-relax-broadcast-decency-standards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 18:04:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=122686</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/us-supreme-court-justices-leery-of-fox-request-to-relax-broadcast-decency">LifeSiteNews.com</a>: he U.S. Supreme Court’s justices broadly expressed skepticism over a petition to relax broadcast decency standards in oral arguments heard today. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/11/u-s-supreme-court-justices-leery-of-fox-request-to-relax-broadcast-decency-standards/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/11/u-s-supreme-court-justices-leery-of-fox-request-to-relax-broadcast-decency-standards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High court to hear TV profanity, nudity case on Tuesday</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/06/high-court-to-hear-tv-profanity-nudity-case-on-tuesday/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/06/high-court-to-hear-tv-profanity-nudity-case-on-tuesday/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=122308</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45904421/ns/today-entertainment/#.TwdwFd5Wrzc">MSNBC</a>: The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday will weigh the government's power to regulate profanity and nudity on broadcast television in a challenge to a long-standing policy that goes back to comedian George Carlin's "Seven Filthy Words" monologue. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/06/high-court-to-hear-tv-profanity-nudity-case-on-tuesday/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/06/high-court-to-hear-tv-profanity-nudity-case-on-tuesday/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Broadcasters take on FCC indecency rules in Supreme Court showdown&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/broadcasters-take-on-fcc-indecency-rules-in-supreme-court-showdown/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/broadcasters-take-on-fcc-indecency-rules-in-supreme-court-showdown/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:13:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=122105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/01/broadcasters-to-fight-fccs-indecency-rules-in-high-court-showdown.html">LaTimes.com</a>: On Tuesday, the high court will hear arguments from News Corp.'s Fox and Walt Disney Co.'s ABC that the Federal Communications Commission's rules regarding indecent programming and the way they are enforced by the agency are both vague and unconstitutional. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/broadcasters-take-on-fcc-indecency-rules-in-supreme-court-showdown/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2012/01/05/broadcasters-take-on-fcc-indecency-rules-in-supreme-court-showdown/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Swiss can ban naked hiking, court rules</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/17/swiss-can-ban-naked-hiking-court-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/17/swiss-can-ban-naked-hiking-court-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:12:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Country: Switzerland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=118932</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15785219">BBC News (includes image of naked hiker)</a>: Switzerland's highest court has ruled that local authorities can impose fines on people hiking nude in the Alps. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/17/swiss-can-ban-naked-hiking-court-rules/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/17/swiss-can-ban-naked-hiking-court-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Watchdog moves to curb sexualised songs on radio</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/08/watchdog-moves-to-curb-sexualised-songs-on-radio/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/08/watchdog-moves-to-curb-sexualised-songs-on-radio/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 16:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Country: United Kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=118082</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.christian.org.uk/news/watchdog-moves-to-curb-sexualised-songs-on-radio/">The Christian Institute</a>: Media watchdog Ofcom is clamping down on radio broadcasters which flout rules meant to protect children from inappropriate music lyrics. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/08/watchdog-moves-to-curb-sexualised-songs-on-radio/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/08/watchdog-moves-to-curb-sexualised-songs-on-radio/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Straight, Gay Couples Lose Virginity On &#8216;Glee&#8217; Episode, Spark Controversy&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/08/straight-gay-couples-lose-virginity-on-glee-episode-spark-controversy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/08/straight-gay-couples-lose-virginity-on-glee-episode-spark-controversy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:49:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=118069</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/11/08/straight-gay-couples-lose-virginity-on-glee-episode-spark-controversy/">Fox News</a>: The popular Fox comedy “Glee” is set to air an episode Tuesday featuring two couples – the heterosexual Finn and Rachel and the homosexual Kurt and Blaine – losing their virginity. And even before it’s even hit the airwaves, the episode has sparked controversy. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/08/straight-gay-couples-lose-virginity-on-glee-episode-spark-controversy/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/08/straight-gay-couples-lose-virginity-on-glee-episode-spark-controversy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>3rd Circuit: FCC Wrongly Fined CBS over Janet Jackson breast display</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/02/3rd-circuit-fcc-wrongly-fined-cbs-over-janet-jackson-breast-display/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/02/3rd-circuit-fcc-wrongly-fined-cbs-over-janet-jackson-breast-display/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:31:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 3rd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: CBS v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=117586</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A federal appeals court on Wednesday for the second time ruled that the Federal Communications Commission improperly fined CBS Corp. for airing singer Janet Jackson's infamous Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction" in 2004. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/02/3rd-circuit-fcc-wrongly-fined-cbs-over-janet-jackson-breast-display/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/11/02/3rd-circuit-fcc-wrongly-fined-cbs-over-janet-jackson-breast-display/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>SCOTUS Considers Free Speech: FCC Indecency, Stolen Valor Act</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/10/19/scotus-considers-free-speech-fcc-indecency-stolen-valor-act/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/10/19/scotus-considers-free-speech-fcc-indecency-stolen-valor-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: U.S. v. Alvarez]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=116276</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court/2011/10/scotus-to-determine-free-speech-rights-in-fcc-indecency-stolen-valor-act.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top">Findlaw</a>: The Nine will also be considering whether Federal Communications Commission (FCC) indecency regulations violate First Amendment rights. The Second Circuit previously ruled that the agency exceeded its authority in fining ABC and Fox for a bare backside and awards show cursing, respectively. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/10/19/scotus-considers-free-speech-fcc-indecency-stolen-valor-act/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/10/19/scotus-considers-free-speech-fcc-indecency-stolen-valor-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lesbians were kicked off Southwest airline for indecency not just kissing</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/29/lesbians-were-kicked-off-southwest-airline-for-indecency-not-just-kissing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/29/lesbians-were-kicked-off-southwest-airline-for-indecency-not-just-kissing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 14:43:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Homosexual Agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=114984</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/29324575/detail.html">Southwest, Lesbian Argument Creates Decency Debate - News Story - KFOX El Paso</a>: Hailey tweeted that she felt discriminated against because of the kissing, but the airline argued the kissing was not the action that removed the couple from the plane. "Profane language was being used loudly by two passengers," read a statement from Southwest. "At least one family who was offended by the loud profanity moved to another area of the cabin <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/29/lesbians-were-kicked-off-southwest-airline-for-indecency-not-just-kissing/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/29/lesbians-were-kicked-off-southwest-airline-for-indecency-not-just-kissing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Liberty Counsel Files Brief Urging the U.S. Supreme Court to Uphold FCC’s Decency Standards</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/liberty-counsel-files-brief-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-uphold-fcc%e2%80%99s-decency-standards/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/liberty-counsel-files-brief-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-uphold-fcc%e2%80%99s-decency-standards/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:57:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Liberty Counsel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=113755</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&#038;PRID=1100">Liberty Counsel</a>: Liberty Counsel filed an <a href="https://www.liberty.edu/media/9980/attachments/Brief_-_Amicus_as_filed.pdf">amicus brief</a> with the United States Supreme Court in <em>FCC v. Fox</em>. The case involves a challenge by broadcast networks to the FCC decency standards for primetime television. Broadcasters claim that the standards are too “vague” and violate their First Amendment rights. In the brief, Liberty Counsel urges the Court to uphold the decency regulations. The brief is filed on behalf of Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D . . . <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/liberty-counsel-files-brief-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-uphold-fcc%e2%80%99s-decency-standards/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/liberty-counsel-files-brief-urging-the-u-s-supreme-court-to-uphold-fcc%e2%80%99s-decency-standards/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FRC Urges Supreme Court to Protect Public Airwaves from Nudity, Fleeting Expletives</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/frc-urges-supreme-court-to-protect-public-airwaves-from-nudity-fleeting-expletives/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/frc-urges-supreme-court-to-protect-public-airwaves-from-nudity-fleeting-expletives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Family Research Council (FRC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=113751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.frc.org/newsroom/frc-urges-supreme-court-to-protect-public-airwaves-from-nudity-fleeting-expletives">FRC Urges Supreme Court to Protect Public Airwaves from Nudity, Fleeting Expletives</a>: amily Research Council (FRC) and Focus on the Family have submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations Inc. arguing that the FCC's regulations against indecent material aired on broadcast TV are constitutional. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/frc-urges-supreme-court-to-protect-public-airwaves-from-nudity-fleeting-expletives/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/16/frc-urges-supreme-court-to-protect-public-airwaves-from-nudity-fleeting-expletives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ACLJ Defends Ban on Television Indecency in Supreme Court Filing</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/15/aclj-defends-ban-on-television-indecency-in-supreme-court-filing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/15/aclj-defends-ban-on-television-indecency-in-supreme-court-filing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:56:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: ACLJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: FCC v. Fox TV]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=113588</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2011/09/14/3909962/aclj-defends-ban-on-television.html">PR Newswire - sacbee.com</a>: The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) today filed a <a href="http://c0391070.cdn2.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/pdf/FCC-v%20Fox-TV-ACLJ-Supreme-Court-Amicus-Brief.pdf">friend-of-the-court brief</a> in the U.S. Supreme Court defending the ability of government authorities to outlaw public indecency, whether in person or on broadcast TV. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/15/aclj-defends-ban-on-television-indecency-in-supreme-court-filing/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/09/15/aclj-defends-ban-on-television-indecency-in-supreme-court-filing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Decency Groups Warn of Trashy Fall TV Line-up</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/08/31/decency-groups-warn-of-trashy-fall-tv-line-up/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/08/31/decency-groups-warn-of-trashy-fall-tv-line-up/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 10:59:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ADF in the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADF: Media Clips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alliance Defense Fund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Coalition for the War on Illegal Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Concerned Women for America (CWA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Family Research Council (FRC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Focus on the Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Morality in Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=112292</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/8802-decency-groups-warn-of-trashy-fall-tv-line-up">The New American</a>: As reported by The New American, a group called the Coalition for the War on Illegal Pornography, led by Morality in Media, “said the show is nothing more than a pornographic attack on families and the culture that should never see the light of day.” The coalition, made up of such groups as Focus on the Family, the Alliance Defense Fund, the Family Research Council, and Concerned Women for America (to name just a few), said in a press release that “NBC is contributing to the sexual objectification and exploitation of women and encouraging greater acceptance of pornography with its soon-to-be-aired series.” The Parents Television Council added to the attack, charging that The Playboy Club is little more than a “blatant attempt to obliterate any remaining standards of broadcast decency.” <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/08/31/decency-groups-warn-of-trashy-fall-tv-line-up/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/08/31/decency-groups-warn-of-trashy-fall-tv-line-up/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Indiana: School Codes of Conduct in question after federal court&#8217;s ruling on out-of-school vulgarity by team members?</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/08/15/indiana-school-codes-of-conduct-in-question-after-federal-courts-ruling-on-out-of-school-vulgarity-by-team-members/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/08/15/indiana-school-codes-of-conduct-in-question-after-federal-courts-ruling-on-out-of-school-vulgarity-by-team-members/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2011 13:41:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: T.V. v. Smith-Green Community School Corp.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=110784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[“Not Much Good Takes Place at Slumber Parties for High School Kids, and This Case Proves the Point” <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/08/15/indiana-school-codes-of-conduct-in-question-after-federal-courts-ruling-on-out-of-school-vulgarity-by-team-members/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/08/15/indiana-school-codes-of-conduct-in-question-after-federal-courts-ruling-on-out-of-school-vulgarity-by-team-members/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cal Thomas: Justices don’t live in the real world</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/cal-thomas-justices-don%e2%80%99t-live-in-the-real-world/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/cal-thomas-justices-don%e2%80%99t-live-in-the-real-world/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 08:26:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Brown v. ELO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=107579</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cal Thomas at the <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/02/2295768/justices-dont-live-in-the-real.html">MiamiHerald.com</a>: Intellectually, I understand the Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision that the First Amendment protects the most violent of video games. Experientially, I don’t. It’s fine for the majority to say parents have ultimate control over what their children see, but how many members of the Supreme Court have experienced “real” life? . . Justices live in an unreal world. They have little experience with cyberspace and violent video games . . . <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/cal-thomas-justices-don%e2%80%99t-live-in-the-real-world/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/cal-thomas-justices-don%e2%80%99t-live-in-the-real-world/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Terence P. Jeffrey: Scalia&#8217;s Stupid Decision</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/terence-p-jeffrey-scalias-stupid-decision/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/terence-p-jeffrey-scalias-stupid-decision/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 07:13:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Parental Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Brown v. EMO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=107562</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Terence P. Jeffrey at <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2011/07/06/scalias_stupid_decision">Townhall</a>: "The practice and beliefs of the founding generation establish that 'the freedom of speech,' as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," wrote Thomas. But Thomas was a dissenter. Justice Antonin Scalia -- a conservative -- wrote the majority opinion in <em>Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association</em>. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/terence-p-jeffrey-scalias-stupid-decision/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/terence-p-jeffrey-scalias-stupid-decision/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hadley Arkes: That’s Entertainment: Free Speech and the Moral Regulation of the Arts</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/hadley-arkes-that%e2%80%99s-entertainment-free-speech-and-the-moral-regulation-of-the-arts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/hadley-arkes-that%e2%80%99s-entertainment-free-speech-and-the-moral-regulation-of-the-arts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 06:39:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Brown v. EMO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=107546</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A recent Supreme Court case reveals a division amongst conservatives over the moral foundations of the law. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/hadley-arkes-that%e2%80%99s-entertainment-free-speech-and-the-moral-regulation-of-the-arts/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/07/06/hadley-arkes-that%e2%80%99s-entertainment-free-speech-and-the-moral-regulation-of-the-arts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court grants cert. in 11 cases including an indecency case</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/06/27/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-11-cases-including-an-indecency-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/06/27/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-11-cases-including-an-indecency-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:19:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: FCC v. Fox]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=107111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/details-on-todays-order-list-4/">SCOTUSblog</a>: This morning the Court granted cert. in a whopping eleven cases.  The complete <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/ordersofthecourt.aspx">order list</a> from the June 23 Conference is available here. In <em>FCC v. Fox</em>, the Court granted cert. limited to one question: whether the FCC’s current indecency enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendments . . . <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/06/27/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-11-cases-including-an-indecency-case/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/06/27/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-11-cases-including-an-indecency-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>High court asked to reinstate FCC indecency policy</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/04/21/high-court-asked-to-reinstate-fcc-indecency-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/04/21/high-court-asked-to-reinstate-fcc-indecency-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=101751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to reinstate a policy that allows federal regulators to fine broadcasters for showing nudity and airing curse words when young children may be watching television. <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/04/21/high-court-asked-to-reinstate-fcc-indecency-policy/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/04/21/high-court-asked-to-reinstate-fcc-indecency-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Morality in Media says Obama Administration must appeal 2nd Circuit decision invalidating the FCC broadcast indecency policy</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/04/11/morality-in-media-says-obama-administration-must-appeal-2nd-circuit-decision-invalidating-the-fcc-broadcast-indecency-policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/04/11/morality-in-media-says-obama-administration-must-appeal-2nd-circuit-decision-invalidating-the-fcc-broadcast-indecency-policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Apr 2011 15:17:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Morality in Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox Television Stations v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=100630</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In order to protect American families from an onslaught of indecency on network television, the U.S. Department of Justice must appeal the July 2010 2nd Circuit decision in <em>Fox Television Stations, et al., v. FCC </em>(lead Circuit Court docket is 06-1760) which invalidated the FCC broadcast indecency policy, according to Morality in Media general counsel Robert Peters.  <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/04/11/morality-in-media-says-obama-administration-must-appeal-2nd-circuit-decision-invalidating-the-fcc-broadcast-indecency-policy/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2011/04/11/morality-in-media-says-obama-administration-must-appeal-2nd-circuit-decision-invalidating-the-fcc-broadcast-indecency-policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New York Times: Video games and the First Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/new-york-times-video-games-and-the-first-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/new-york-times-video-games-and-the-first-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:10:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=81811</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12fri3.html">New York Times Editorial</a>: "If the Supreme Court renders justice in a case it heard this month, <em>Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association</em>, it will strike down a California law barring the sale or rental of violent video games to anyone under 18. That would end a violation of free expression — but not prevent the states from finding other ways to support parents who do not want their children to play violent games." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/new-york-times-video-games-and-the-first-amendment/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/new-york-times-video-games-and-the-first-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How obscene is video game violence?</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/how-obscene-is-video-game-violence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/how-obscene-is-video-game-violence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:11:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=81734</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20101109/column09_st.art.htm">USA Today</a>: "Expanding the obscenity umbrella would have a dramatic impact on America's popular culture. Highly violent films or television programs without a hint of nudity or sexual content could potentially lose First Amendment protection. And if we decide that some ideas are so horrendous that they can be added to the obscene list, how can we ever put a cap on government intrusion?" <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/how-obscene-is-video-game-violence/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/how-obscene-is-video-game-violence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Brent Bozell: The vast child-fattening conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/brent-bozell-the-vast-child-fattening-conspiracy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/brent-bozell-the-vast-child-fattening-conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=81715</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Brent Bozell <a href="http://townhall.com/columnists/BrentBozell/2010/11/12/the_vast_child-fattening_conspiracy/page/full/">writing at Townhall</a>: "[I]f the issue isn't indecency, but instead, say, obesity, so many of those titans of 'tolerance' suddenly become the censors. Behold San Francisco, the paradise of permissive sexual attitudes. The city council may welcome flowers in your hair, but they have just voted to ban 'Happy Meal' toys unless the 'happy' menu is low in fat and sodium, and includes fruits and vegetables." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/brent-bozell-the-vast-child-fattening-conspiracy/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/11/12/brent-bozell-the-vast-child-fattening-conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC&#8217;s appeal of indecency case applauded</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/30/fccs-appeal-of-indecency-case-applauded/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/30/fccs-appeal-of-indecency-case-applauded/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 21:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/30/fccs-appeal-of-indecency-case-applauded/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=33604">Baptist Press</a>: "Pro-family advocates applauded the Federal Communications Commission's decision to appeal a court ruling they fear could open broadcast television to the use of even more profanities and obscenities." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/30/fccs-appeal-of-indecency-case-applauded/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/30/fccs-appeal-of-indecency-case-applauded/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC appeals negative decency ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/29/fcc-appeals-negative-decency-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/29/fcc-appeals-negative-decency-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[ADF in the News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ADF: Media Clips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=70655</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=1138778">OneNewsNow</a>: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided to appeal a court decision that makes it impossible for the agency to restrict indecency in media . . . 'In my mind, they had to appeal either this case or the Janet Jackson  Super Bowl wardrobe malfunction case, which is going to be decided  soon,' notes Pat Trueman, who heads the <a href="http://pornharms.com/">War on Illegal Pornography</a> . . . Trueman, who is also an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), tells OneNewsNow the outcome is vital because lower courts have not been favorable toward the FCC." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/29/fcc-appeals-negative-decency-ruling/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/29/fcc-appeals-negative-decency-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Concerned Women applaud FCC&#8217;s appeal of indecency ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/27/concerned-women-applaud-fccs-appeal-of-indecency-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/27/concerned-women-applaud-fccs-appeal-of-indecency-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Concerned Women for America (CWA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=70486</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.christiannewswire.com/~chrisvn5/news/1901714792.html">ChristianNewsWire</a>: "Concerned Women for America's (CWA) CEO Penny Nance applauded the FCC's move saying: 'We are pleased to see the FCC is standing up for families and the agency's power to regulate indecency granted by "We the People."  CWA's half-million members around the country called on FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to appeal the decision and we stand with the FCC as they ask the Second Circuit to reconsider its wrongful decision.'" <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/27/concerned-women-applaud-fccs-appeal-of-indecency-ruling/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/27/concerned-women-applaud-fccs-appeal-of-indecency-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC appeals ruling on indecency restrictions</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/26/fcc-appeals-ruling-on-indecency-restrictions/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/26/fcc-appeals-ruling-on-indecency-restrictions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 22:09:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=70443</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/115947-fcc-appeals-court-ruling-on-indecency-policy">The Hill</a>: "The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is appealing a federal court ruling that its indecency policy is unconstitutional, arguing the decision makes it all but impossible for the agency to enforce restrictions on broadcasting nudity or profanity." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/26/fcc-appeals-ruling-on-indecency-restrictions/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/26/fcc-appeals-ruling-on-indecency-restrictions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Former editor of Indonesian Playboy magazine faces jail</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/25/former-editor-of-indonesian-playboy-magazine-faces-jail/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/25/former-editor-of-indonesian-playboy-magazine-faces-jail/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 20:11:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Global: Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Global]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Country: Indonesia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=70253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/former-editor-of-indonesian-playboy-magazine-faces-jail/392945">The Jakarta Globe</a>: "The former editor in chief of the short-lived Indonesian edition of Playboy magazine is just one piece of paper away from starting a jail term after a 2009 Supreme Court ruling convicting him of indecency charges was revealed this week." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/25/former-editor-of-indonesian-playboy-magazine-faces-jail/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/25/former-editor-of-indonesian-playboy-magazine-faces-jail/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Just 29% say FCC does a good job regulating profanity, sexual content and violence</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/04/just-29-say-fcc-does-a-good-job-regulating-profanity-sexual-content-and-violence/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/04/just-29-say-fcc-does-a-good-job-regulating-profanity-sexual-content-and-violence/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 17:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=67385</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/july_2010/just_29_say_fcc_does_a_good_job_regulating_profanity_sexual_content_and_violence">Rasmussen Reports</a>: "A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 29% of Adults say the FCC is doing a good or excellent job regulating profanity, sexual content and violence on television and radio. Twenty-eight percent (28%) feel the FCC is doing a poor job monitoring content." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/04/just-29-say-fcc-does-a-good-job-regulating-profanity-sexual-content-and-violence/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/08/04/just-29-say-fcc-does-a-good-job-regulating-profanity-sexual-content-and-violence/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>If Jacob Sullum is right, then inability to precisely define &#8220;indecent&#8221; and &#8220;obscene&#8221; means anything can air during TV family hour</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/26/if-jacob-sullum-is-right-then-inability-to-precisely-define-indecent-and-obscene-means-anything-can-air-during-tv-family-hour/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/26/if-jacob-sullum-is-right-then-inability-to-precisely-define-indecent-and-obscene-means-anything-can-air-during-tv-family-hour/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:40:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Morality in Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Obscenity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=66495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/3671214510.html">ChristianNewsWire</a>: "I wouldn't dispute Mr. Sullum's observation that the FCC's current guidelines for enforcing the broadcast indecency law are 'muddled.' He might have added that the guidelines have become muddled in good part because of court decisions. But do broadcasters really need additional guidance to determine which indecent words they can air in the presence of children and how often?" <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/26/if-jacob-sullum-is-right-then-inability-to-precisely-define-indecent-and-obscene-means-anything-can-air-during-tv-family-hour/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/26/if-jacob-sullum-is-right-then-inability-to-precisely-define-indecent-and-obscene-means-anything-can-air-during-tv-family-hour/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Four cases potentially headed to the Court including FCC ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/14/four-cases-potentially-headed-to-the-court-including-fcc-ruling/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/14/four-cases-potentially-headed-to-the-court-including-fcc-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Federal Communications Commission (FCC)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/14/four-cases-potentially-headed-to-the-court-including-fcc-ruling/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SCOTUS Blog has <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/07/wednesday-round-up-41/#more-23086">this coverage</a> yesterday's ruling in <em>Fox News Television, Inc. v. FCC. </em> It includes a brief summary of the case history. The Blog also posted <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/07/fleeting-expletive-ban-lifted/">this analysis</a> of the ruling yesterday.  <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/14/four-cases-potentially-headed-to-the-court-including-fcc-ruling/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/14/four-cases-potentially-headed-to-the-court-including-fcc-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC indecency rule struck down by appeals court</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/13/fcc-indecency-rule-struck-down-by-appeals-court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/13/fcc-indecency-rule-struck-down-by-appeals-court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:26:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: 2nd Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Group: Focus on the Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Fox News Television v. FCC]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/13/fcc-indecency-rule-struck-down-by-appeals-court/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["A three-judge panel in New York says a rule on unscripted expletives on live broadcast TV and radio creates a 'chilling effect' in violation of the 1st Amendment."  <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/13/fcc-indecency-rule-struck-down-by-appeals-court/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/07/13/fcc-indecency-rule-struck-down-by-appeals-court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Law Review: A Right to Bare All? Female Public Toplessness and Dealing with the Laws the Prohibit</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/08/law-review-a-right-to-bare-all-female-public-toplessness-and-dealing-with-the-laws-the-prohibit/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/08/law-review-a-right-to-bare-all-female-public-toplessness-and-dealing-with-the-laws-the-prohibit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Legal Periodicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=62449</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>A Right to Bare All? Female Public Toplessness and Dealing with the Laws the Prohibit</em>
Danielle Moriber, 8 Cardozo Pub. L. Pol'y &#38; Ethics J. 453 (2010)

"First Amendment jurisprudence rests on subjective determinations and balancing. The rights granted under the First Amendment focus on regulating speech, not conduct. If a woman is engaged in unassociated nudity, or nudity that is not intertwined with 'speech' or a 'message' separate from the nudity, the nudity is mere conduct and is not entitled to First Amendment Protection. If, however, the nudity is not 'nudity for nudity's sake' and is associated with speech as part of a specific message, it will likely fall under the protections of the First Amendment. As a result, general prohibitions on female toplessness are usually constitutional. Ironically, because protesting is highly valued and generally protected as political speech, when women are protesting topless bans, their specific expression will likely be permissible. Any law in the jurisdiction that generally prohibits unassociated nudity, however, will not consequently be overturned. Therefore, due to the Court's First Amendment jurisprudence, activists should not seek to change applicable laws in the courts. Rather, activists should focus their efforts on state and local law making bodies in order to accomplish their goal of gaining topless equality." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/08/law-review-a-right-to-bare-all-female-public-toplessness-and-dealing-with-the-laws-the-prohibit/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/06/08/law-review-a-right-to-bare-all-female-public-toplessness-and-dealing-with-the-laws-the-prohibit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Boulder Nudity Ban Gets Initial Approval</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/07/boulder-nudity-ban-gets-initial-approval/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/07/boulder-nudity-ban-gets-initial-approval/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:01:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/04/07/boulder-nudity-ban-gets-initial-approval/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://cbs4denver.com/local/Boulder.nudity.ban.2.1616056.html">CBS4</a>: "Boulder City Council was scheduled to talk about streakers in the streets Tuesday evening. The council was expected to hear from the public for the first time on a proposal that would make it illegal to be naked in public . . . Boulder amended its original ordinance to make it okay for both men and women to go topless." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/07/boulder-nudity-ban-gets-initial-approval/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/07/boulder-nudity-ban-gets-initial-approval/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Maine: Marching for right to bare breasts, women faced with sea of cameras</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/05/maine-marching-for-right-to-bare-breasts-women-faced-with-sea-of-cameras/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/05/maine-marching-for-right-to-bare-breasts-women-faced-with-sea-of-cameras/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:05:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Miscellaneous]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State: Maine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Indecency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Pornography]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/04/05/maine-marching-for-right-to-bare-breasts-women-faced-with-sea-of-cameras/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.pressherald.com/news/marching-for-right-to-bare-breasts-women-faced-with-sea-of-cameras_2010-04-04.html">The Portland Press Herald</a>: "The point of the march was that a topless woman out in public should attract no more attention than a man walking around without a shirt on, said Ty MacDowell, 20, of Westbrook, who organized Saturday's event and promoted it on Facebook . . . 'You (men) can let it all out -- why can't we?'" <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/05/maine-marching-for-right-to-bare-breasts-women-faced-with-sea-of-cameras/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/05/maine-marching-for-right-to-bare-breasts-women-faced-with-sea-of-cameras/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

