Osborne v. Ohio
| Osborne v. Ohio | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued December 5, 1989 Decided April 18, 1990 |
|
| Full case name | Clyde Osborne v. State of Ohio |
| Citations | 495 U.S. 103 (more) |
| Prior history | Conviction affirmed by the Ohio Court of Appeals and Ohio Supreme Court. Defendant appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. |
| Subsequent history | Statute upheld; case remanded for new trial. |
| Holding | |
| The First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | White, joined by Rehnquist, Blackmun, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy |
| Concurrence | Blackmun |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Stevens |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. I | |
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. In so doing, the Court extended the holding of New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes. The Court also determined that the Ohio law at issue was not overbroad, relying on a narrowing interpretation of the law the Ohio Supreme Court had adopted in prior proceedings in the case. However, because it was unclear whether the State had proved all the elements of the crime, the Court ordered a new trial.
The Court held that, with respect to child pornography, the government does not act out of a "paternalistic interest" in regulating a citizen's mind. By outlawing the possession of child pornography, the government seeks to eradicate legitimate harms by diminishing the market for child pornography. These harms include the psychological damage to children—both the children depicted in the pornography, for whom the images produced serve as a permanent record of the abuse, and the children whom potential abusers might lure with such images. "Given the importance of the State's interest in protecting the victims of child pornography, we cannot fault Ohio for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain."
...
Wikipedia