OSBORNE v. OHIO

Print this Page
Case Basics
Docket No. 
88-5986
Appellee 
Ohio
Appellant 
Osborne
Advocates
(Argued the cause for the appellant)
(Argued the cause for the appellee)
Tags
Term:
Facts of the Case 

After obtaining a warrant, Ohio police searched the home of Clyde Osborne and found explicit pictures of naked, sexually aroused male adolescents. Osborne was then prosecuted and found guilty of violating an Ohio law that made the possession of child pornography illegal.

Question 

Did Ohio's ban on the possession of child pornography violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion 
Decision: 6 votes for Ohio, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The Court held that Ohio could constitutionally proscribe the possession of child pornography. The Court argued that the case at hand was distinct from Stanley v. Georgia, "because the interest underlying child pornography prohibitions far exceed the interests justifying the Georgia law at issue in Stanley." Ohio did not rely on "a paternalistic interest in regulating Osborne's mind;" rather, Ohio merely attempted to protect the victims of child pornography. The Court argued that regulations on production and distribution of child pornography were insufficient and could not dry up the market for pornographic materials. The Court also found that an error in jury instructions in the lower courts mandated Osborne be given a new trial.

Cite this Page
OSBORNE v. OHIO. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 10 August 2014. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_5986>.
OSBORNE v. OHIO, The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_5986 (last visited August 10, 2014).
"OSBORNE v. OHIO," The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, accessed August 10, 2014, http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_5986.