Anti-porn law ruled OK by court

Both sides are able to declare victory in the narrowly defined state law.

Cracker Barrel manager accused of embezzling $2K
Updated 8 min. ago
Frozen yogurt shop offers frenzy of flavors, toppings
5:58 p.m.
Wright-Patterson relatively unscathed in Obama defense budget
4:55 p.m.
Dayton Mall shoe store moving
4:32 p.m.
Is your “unlimited” data being throttled?
2:32 p.m.
> More headlines

By William Hershey, Columbus Bureau Updated 6:48 AM Friday, April 16, 2010

COLUMBUS — Police and prosecutors will have a new, narrowly defined state law to use to protect children from pornography and predators on the Internet.

That’s the effect of a federal appeals court ruling Thursday, April 15, that had both sides declaring victory. Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray had defended the law against challenges from booksellers and other groups.

The law is constitutional, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled. It is to be applied just to materials sent through person-to-person communications such as e-mails and not to materials on generally accessible Web sites where the person distributing the obscene material can’t stop a juvenile from seeing it.

“As the statute is limited to personally directed communications to a person that the sender knows or should know is a juvenile, we find that the statute does not violate the First Amendment as it is not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague and it survives strict scrutiny analysis,” the ruling said.

The appeals court directed the U.S. District Court in Dayton to lift an injunction that has prohibited county prosecutors from enforcing the law.

“This will allow that law to be finally enforced, providing an important tool for local law enforcement and prosecutors as they combat sexual predators’ use of the Internet and other electronic communications to prey on young people,” Cordray said in a press release.

David Horowitz, director of the Media Coalition Inc., which includes some of the plaintiffs, in a press released called the ruling a “decision for free speech.”

The ruling came after the Ohio Supreme Court in January, at the request of the federal court, decided that Cordray was correct in interpreting that the law was to be narrowly, not broadly, applied.

Share this article