Court Strikes Down Overly Broad Oregon Obscenity Laws
Legal News Center
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit this week found two Oregon statutes ostensibly aimed at preventing the sexual abuse of children to be unconstitutional and in violation of the First Amendment. The court found that a “furnishing” statute, (Oregon Revised Statutes § 167.054) (“section 054”), which made it a crime to provide children under the age of 13 with "sexually explicit"material, and a “luring” statute, (§ 167.057) which criminalized providing minors under the age of 18 with "visual, verbal, or narrative descriptions of sexual conduct," to be overly broad and potentially in violation of free speech protections.
While the state of Oregon had argued that the statutes applied only to “hardcore pornography,” the Ninth Circuit found that, as written, the laws could be applied to much more, including books like Judy Blume’s Forever, and Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale. "Although the state argues that the statutes may be construed to narrowly focus on the sharing of hardcore pornography or material that is obscene to minors alone, its position is contradicted by the statutory text," reads the court decision. "In their current form, the statutes sweep up a host of material entitled to constitutional protection, ranging from standard sexual education materials to novels for children and young adults by Judy Blume. Despite the legislature’s laudable goals, we cannot rewrite the statute to conform to constitutional limitations."
Related listings
-
Court lets part of organic-milk case proceed
Legal News Center 09/16/2010A federal appeals court says a group of dairy consumers can proceed with parts of a lawsuit alleging that several national retailers and an organic dairy company falsely labeled the dairy's milk.Aurora Organic Dairy, based in Boulder, Colo., is the n...
-
Minn. court says hoisting pants not illegal search
Legal News Center 09/15/2010A Minnesota court says pulling up the saggy pants of a crime suspect is not an illegal search, even if it turns up a gun.The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday came in a case that arose after a drug suspect was stopped by St. Paul police offic...
-
Microsoft Scores Court Victory Against Waledac Botnet
Legal News Center 09/10/2010A federal judge has brought Microsoft one step closer to seizing control of 276 domains controlled by the Waledac botnet.A magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court of Eastern Virginia decided Sept. 3 to recommend that a default judgment be granted...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.