<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Elton John and the Picture Police</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/09/28/elton_john_and_the_picture_pol/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/09/28/elton_john_and_the_picture_pol/</link>
	<description>Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:06:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Greybear</title>
		<link>http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/09/28/elton_john_and_the_picture_pol/comment-page-1/#comment-141</link>
		<dc:creator>Greybear</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:29:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lookingaround.blogs.time.com/2007/09/28/elton_john_and_the_picture_pol/#comment-141</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t seen the picture, but from your description I can say that it would be more than enough to sustain a conviction in any number of jurisdictions in this country. While it would probably be safe under Federal law, state statutes are quite often much broader. In Washington, for instance, the only requirement is that the genitals or &quot;breasts&quot; be visible and that the state is able to argue it was taken for a prurient interest. Juries usually assume that.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven't seen the picture, but from your description I can say that it would be more than enough to sustain a conviction in any number of jurisdictions in this country. While it would probably be safe under Federal law, state statutes are quite often much broader. In Washington, for instance, the only requirement is that the genitals or "breasts" be visible and that the state is able to argue it was taken for a prurient interest. Juries usually assume that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
