Ohio anti-porn law put on hold
By The Associated Press
08.05.02
DAYTON, Ohio — A federal judge late last week temporarily blocked enforcement of Ohio's new anti-pornography law, saying it is too broad and appears to violate the constitutional right of free speech.
U.S. District Court Judge Walter Rice on Aug. 2 issued a temporary restraining order at the request of attorneys for bookstores, newspapers and video software dealers.
The law adds computer images to the list of possible ways to display sexually explicit material and other content deemed "harmful to juveniles." Lawmakers passed the bill in February, and Gov. Bob Taft signed it in May.
In his decision, Rice said the law's definition of what is harmful to juveniles is too broad and outlaws conduct and expression protected by the First Amendment.
As written, the law could affect publishers, booksellers and others who disseminate material to juveniles, Rice said.
The temporary restraining order keeps the law from going into effect today. Rice said he will grant a preliminary injunction later, which is indefinite and could result in a trial.
Prosecutors welcomed the new law, saying it would allow authorities to put sexual predators behind bars longer.
"We could use this statute as something else in our arsenal," Craig King, assistant Greene County prosecutor, said earlier on Aug. 2. "It would give us another charge to throw in."
When predators send pornography or nude photos of themselves over the Internet, they can only be charged with attempted dissemination of matter harmful to juveniles, a misdemeanor, since the detectives aren't really minors, King said.
Under the new law, the predators could be charged with a felony and face up to a year more jail time, he said.
But bookstores, publishers and video software dealers who sued the state argued that the law would violate their First Amendment rights and would restrict Internet communications.
In a hearing before Rice on July 31, Elise Porter, an assistant Ohio attorney general, said the law attempts to modernize the way Ohio fights pornography and gives authorities more tools to go after sexual predators who use the Internet to prey on juveniles.
But Michael Bamberger, the attorney for opponents of the law, said the statute is too broad, and its definition of what is harmful to juveniles is difficult to understand. He said the law would have a chilling effect on the dissemination of constitutionally protected speech and expression.
Courts in six other states struck down attempts at similar restrictions, he said.
State Rep. Jim Hughes, R-Columbus, sponsored the law after a case he handled while an assistant Franklin County prosecutor.
In the case, Mark Maxwell, of Oxford, was sentenced to 18 years in prison in 1999 on charges that he enticed minors into sex through Internet chat rooms and e-mail.
Some of the charges were dismissed because jurors said the law on disseminating pornography did not include electronic images, Hughes has said.