|
''American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland'', 560 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2009), is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances. The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute.〔''Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland'', (560 F.3d 443 )(6th Cir. 2009).〕 The Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions affirmatively and placed a (narrowing construction ) on the statute.〔''Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Cordray'', (Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-149 )(Oh. Jan. 27, 2010).〕 Since the Ohio Supreme Court's decision, the Sixth Circuit has not reheard the case. ==Facts and Procedural Background== In 2002, plaintiffs (American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression ), joined by various publishers, retailers, and web site operators, sued Ohio’s Attorney General and Ohio county prosecutors in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio Revised Code ( §2907.01(E) and (J) ), which prohibited the dissemination or display of “materials harmful to juveniles,” unconstitutionally violated both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Plaintiffs specifically challenged the statute's definition of "harmful to juveniles," as well as the provisions governing internet dissemination of those materials.〔''Bookfriends, Inc. v. Taft'', (223 F. Supp. 2d 932 )(S.D. Ohio 2002).〕 The district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute as applied to internet communications because it was unconstitutionally overbroad and failed strict scrutiny, but rejected a challenge under the Commerce Clause. The court held the statute unconstitutional because the statute's definition of "material harmful to minors" did not comply with two United States Supreme Court decisions -- ''Miller v. California'' and ''Ginsberg v. New York'' -- which defined the constitutional standards for the regulation of obscenity and the regulation of material deemed "harmful to minors."〔''Bookfriends, Inc. v. Taft'', (223 F. Supp. 2d at 945 ).〕 Defendants appealed the decision to the Sixth Circuit. Before the Sixth Circuit could hear the appeal, however, the Ohio General Assembly amended the challenged statute. The Sixth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to consider the constitutionality of the newly amended statute.〔''Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland'', (560 F.3d at 445 ).〕 At the district court, plaintiffs challenged the provisions of (§2907.31(E) ), which prohibited the distribution of certain sexually explicit materials that were "harmful to juveniles," and (§2907.31(D) ), "internet provision(S.D. Ohio 2007).〕 The district court concluded that the amended statute’s definition of material "harmful to juveniles” was not unconstitutionally vague, and thus satisfied the Supreme Court’s tests under ''Miller'' and ''Ginsberg''. However, the district court concluded that the statute’s treatment of “internet communications” was unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. The court then partially granted and denied summary judgment to both parties.〔''Id.'' at (1093-94, 1099, 1106. )〕 Both parties appealed the decision. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|