Osborne v. Ohio
Osborne v. Ohio is a significant Supreme Court case addressing the legality of possessing child pornography. Decided by a 6-3 vote, the Court upheld a law that made it illegal to possess such materials, emphasizing the paramount importance of protecting children from sexual exploitation. This ruling built upon precedents like New York v. Ferber, which prioritized child protection over adult rights to possess obscene materials. The case highlighted a nuanced distinction: while Ferber dealt with the sale of child pornography, Osborne revolved around the possession of such materials for private use, raising questions about constitutional protections established in earlier rulings like Stanley v. Georgia. The opinion was authored by Justice Byron R. White, with a notable dissent from Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, who argued that the statute was overly broad. This case illustrates the ongoing tension between individual rights and societal interests in safeguarding vulnerable populations. As such, it remains a crucial reference point in discussions about obscenity, child protection laws, and First Amendment rights.
Osborne v. Ohio
Date: April 18, 1990
Citation: 495 U.S. 103
Issue: Pornography
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld statutes making mere possession of child pornography a crime.
By a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court upheld a law that made it illegal to simply possess child pornography. As in New York v. Ferber (1982), the Court found that the importance of protecting children from sexual exploitation was so great as to override any protection for adults’ rights to possess obscene materials. Unlike Ferber, which involved the sale of child pornography, this case involved people’s right to possess obscene materials for their own use in their own home, which presumably had constitutional protection after the Court’s ruling in Stanley v. Georgia (1969). Justice Byron R. White wrote the opinion, and Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred. Justices William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, and John Paul Stevens dissented, finding that the statute was overbroad even after the construction had been narrowed.
