Media Coalition Files Challenge to Broad Ohio Censorship Law

In May 2002, immediately after Governor Bob Taft of Ohio signed into law Ohio House Bill 8, members of Media Coalition joined a large and diverse group in filing a constitutional challenge in U.S. District Court in Dayton, OH. The law will criminalize the dissemination to minors of any material that contains a verbal or visual depiction of "nudity, extreme or bizarre violence, cruelty or brutality, repeated uses of foul language, violent torture, dismemberment, destruction, death of a human being or criminal activity that tends to glorify or glamorize the activity." It is a wildly overbroad restriction on minors access to First Amendment protected material and, like laws struck down in six other states, unconstitutional in its application to the Internet. The law potentially criminalizes books such as Dead Man Walking and Without Sanctuary, Lynching Photography in America and movies such as Unforgiven and Goodfellas.

In April 2002, the Supreme Court found overbroad and unconstitutional the Child Pornography Prevention Act. The law passed in 1996 radically expanded the definition of child pornography to include images that depict adults who "appear" to be minors and computer generated or other visual images that appear to be of a minor. Justice Kennedy writing for the majority stated, "where speech is neither obscene nor the product of sexual abuse, it does not fall outside the protection of the First Amendment." He added that the suggestion that speech would cause unlawful acts without showing direct causation is not an acceptable basis to ban the speech. While the members of Media Coalition strongly oppose child pornography, in June 2001, they filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court to reiterate their concerns with the CPPA’s criminalization of visual depictions of material ranging from the movies Titanic and Traffic to drawings and sculptures to ads with the Copportone baby. In May 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that inability to determine community standards with respect to the Internet is not sufficient reason to find the Child Online Protection Act unconstitutional. There was strong language in the opinion suggesting that the law has serious constitutional flaws. COPA is a second attempt at a broad federal restriction on using the Internet to transmit non-obscene material with sexual content. Members of Media Coalition joined the suit as plaintiffs and as signatories to a friend of the court brief, along with a wide range of groups

The members of Media Coalition and their members continue their successful challenges to state restrictions on the dissemination of "material harmful to minors" by Internet. We have successfully defended the First Amendment in Virginia, Arizona, Vermont, New Mexico and New York. Each of these laws would have reduced what is

available on the Internet for adults to what is appropriate for minors. In April 2002, U.S. District Court Judge Murtha issued a final injunction to bar enforcement of the Vermont law, stating, "Because the level of discourse reaching an adult’s Internet mailbox cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox." In February 2002, U.S. District Judge Marquez found Arizona’s Internet law to be an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fifth Amendments and the Commerce Clause. In October 2001, U.S. District Judge Michael granted summary judgment and permanently barred enforcement of the Virginia law, finding it both overbroad and contrary to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

In May 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a municipality could rely on a previous study to justify regulation of businesses that predominately sell sexually explicit material for the purposes of a summary judgment motion. However, four justices joined a dissenting opinion that said it was time to reconsider the courts previous decisions allowing a lower level of scrutiny of business regulations of retailers of First Amendment protected material and a fifth justice left open the possibility of reconsidering present doctrine in a different case. In August 2001, members of Media Coalition submitted a brief reminding the Supreme Court that many of the ordinances at issue define adult business any business with 10 percent of its floor space devoted to or 10 percent of its revenue derived from material containing nudity or sexuality. These definitions could force mainstream book, video and music stores to locate in industrial areas set aside for adult businesses and meet employee licensing requirements meant for workers in strip clubs and similar businesses.

The Media Coalition continues to educate the media and public regarding the mis-perceptions about the influence of media with violent content by talking with reporters, speaking publicly and distributing our report, Shooting the Messenger: Why Censorship Won’t Stop Violence, in response to media stories or public statements. Shooting the Messenger debunks the claim that there is a relationship between reading, watching or listening to media and committing acts of violence. The report demonstrates that the causes of violence are both complex and varied but there is no causal link between violent media and actual violence. The report also emphasizes that past efforts to protect minors by restricting their access to media, from half-dime novels to comic books to jazz and rock and roll, has never prevented real life violence. It is up to parents and mentors to help their kids understand and digest different media.

In April 2002, the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled unanimously that a search warrant seeking information about a book purchased by a Tattered Cover customer violated both the First Amendment and the Colorado Constitution. The Court further held that a warrant for bookstore purchase records could only be issued after a hearing at which the store owner had an opportunity to oppose the warrant. Media Coalition members joined a broad group to file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of Colorado supporting Joyce Meskis’s fight to defend customer privacy. This case was the most recent and strongest decision in a growing body of law that states that a search of a bookstore’s purchase records has clear First Amendment implications.