<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Episode 92: Mushi Hime</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.anime-pulse.com/2007/08/16/episode-92-mushi-hime/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.anime-pulse.com/2007/08/16/episode-92-mushi-hime/</link>
	<description>An Anime Podcast.  We've got our fingers on the pulse of Anime, with reviews, rants, and stories.</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:25:04 +0000</pubDate>
	
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://www.anime-pulse.com/2007/08/16/episode-92-mushi-hime/#comment-48774</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 23:02:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.anime-pulse.com/2007/08/16/episode-92-mushi-hime/#comment-48774</guid>
		<description>I'm piping in to add some clarification to the discussion on Child Pornography laws in the U.S. Feel free to ignore this rambling comment if you like, but suffice it to say that Batou was correct about the legal status of the content in question. Under Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (533 U.S. 234 (2002)), "virtual child pornography" is not encompassed by the ruling in a previous case that removed child porn from the realm of protected First Amendment speech. The 1996 statute banning virtual child porn was ruled unconstitutionally overbroad. Quoting Justice Kennedy (only because I agree so strongly with the idea), "[t]he mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it."

Just in case anybody cares.
-J</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m piping in to add some clarification to the discussion on Child Pornography laws in the U.S. Feel free to ignore this rambling comment if you like, but suffice it to say that Batou was correct about the legal status of the content in question. Under Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (533 U.S. 234 (2002)), &#8220;virtual child pornography&#8221; is not encompassed by the ruling in a previous case that removed child porn from the realm of protected First Amendment speech. The 1996 statute banning virtual child porn was ruled unconstitutionally overbroad. Quoting Justice Kennedy (only because I agree so strongly with the idea), &#8220;[t]he mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Just in case anybody cares.<br />
-J</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anime Pulse Podcast &#171; Cool Podcasts</title>
		<link>http://www.anime-pulse.com/2007/08/16/episode-92-mushi-hime/#comment-46958</link>
		<dc:creator>Anime Pulse Podcast &#171; Cool Podcasts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 08:51:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.anime-pulse.com/2007/08/16/episode-92-mushi-hime/#comment-46958</guid>
		<description>[...] simply subscribing to Anime Pulse. So check the gang on their latest news and reviews as they pick Mai Hime and Mushi-Uta for their Episode 92 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] simply subscribing to Anime Pulse. So check the gang on their latest news and reviews as they pick Mai Hime and Mushi-Uta for their Episode 92 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
