Child Porn Ban Extended to Homes

States may outlaw all possession and viewing of child pornography--even in one’s own home, the Supreme Court ruled today as it imposed new limits on freedom of expression and privacy.

By a 6-3 vote, the court upheld an Ohio law that makes it a crime to possess so-called kiddie porn. The decision extends a 1982 ruling in which the justices said production and distribution of sexual depictions of children can be outlawed.

The justices had been told the Ohio law is the toughest kiddie porn legislation in the nation.

Nonetheless, the court, on narrower grounds, struck down the conviction of Clyde Osborne of Columbus.

The justices said the jury was not instructed properly. They ordered a new trial for Osborne, who had been sentenced to six months in prison and fined $100 for possessing nude photos of a boy believed to be 13 or 14.

The case pitted the sanctity of the home against the safety and welfare of children.

Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, said Ohio legitimately seeks to “destroy a market for the exploitative use of children” by making possession of child pornography a crime.

“Given the importance of the state’s interest in protecting the victims of child pornography, we cannot fault Ohio for attempting to stamp out this vice at all levels in the distribution chain,” he said.

White also said Ohio’s law is not too broad because it specifically forbids possession of lewd material or material that focuses on genitals.

A prosecution could not be based on possession of innocuous photos of one’s children wearing no clothes, he said.

White was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Harry A. Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy.

Justice William Brennan, the court’s leading liberal and a major free-speech advocate, said in dissent that the law was too broad, extending far beyond child pornography.

“Pictures of topless bathers at a Mediterranean beach, of teen-agers in revealing dress and even of toddlers romping unclothed, all might be prohibited,” he said.

“Pictures of fashion models wearing semitransparent clothing might be illegal,” he said.

“Mr. Osborne’s pictures may be distasteful, but the Constitution guarantees both his right to possess them privately and his right to avoid punishment under an overbroad law,” Brennan concluded.

Joining Brennan’s opinion were Justices Thurgood Marshall and John Paul Stevens.

The court for over 30 years has allowed states to outlaw the sale and distribution of obscene materials, ruling in a series of cases that it is not constitutionally protected.

But the court in 1969 barred states from outlawing the mere at-home possession of obscene materials.

The court in 1982 carved out its newest exception to free-speech rights. It let states outlaw material depicting children in sexual performances or poses--even if not obscene.