6th Circuit: Ohio anti-porn law is constitutional
Cleveland.com (AP): “A federal appeals panel has ruled that an Ohio law aimed at protecting children from online pornography and predators is constitutional as interpreted by the state Supreme Court . . .”
Hat tip: How Appealing
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland, Nos. 07-4375/4376 (6th Cir. Apr. 15, 2010)
Excerpts:
BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs sued Ohio’s Attorney General and county prosecutors, arguing that Ohio Revised Code § 2907.31(D)(1), which criminalizes sending juveniles material that is harmful to them, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and Commerce Clause. The district court permanently enjoined its enforcement “as applied to internet communications” on the
basis that it is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 512 F. Supp. 2d 1082, 1106 (S.D. Ohio 2007).
Defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed the district court’s decision that the law is not void for vagueness and does not violate the Commerce Clause. We certified the question of the scope of the statute to the Ohio Supreme Court. Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, 447 (6th Cir. 2009). The Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that the statute applied only to personally directed electronic communications and that it did not apply to generally accessible communications. Am. Booksellers Found. v. Cordray, 922 N.E.2d 192, at 195 (Ohio 2010). As the scope of the statute is limited to personally directed electronic communications, as currently available or developed in the future, we find that the statute does not violate the First Amendment or the Commerce Clause.
For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s entry of judgment for the plaintiffs and REMAND the case to the district
injunction and enter judgment for defendants.
COMMENTS
