Most recent news: On January 27, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court answered the certified questions asked by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Court made clear that those who post material on generally-accessible websites and chatrooms cannot be prosecuted under this law. 

"We are pleased that the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the Ohio Attorney General's belated recognition that the statute was too broad, and should be construed narrowly," said Michael Bamberger, lead counsel in the case and general counsel to Media Coalition.  "The decision makes clear that persons who post non-obscene material on generally-accesible websites and in public chatrooms cannot be prosecuted based on an allegation that the material is harmful to minors.  But the decision leaves many questions unanswered:  What is a generally accessible website?  If a newspaper charges a fee for using its website, does that mean that it is not generally-accessible?  And does that mean that an editor or reporter who posts non-obscene material on a newspaper website can be prosecuted?  If a university website is accessible only to alumni, is the site generally accessible?  What makes a chatroom a "public" chatroom, rather than a private chatroom?   What about social networking sites or Twitter?  Are they covered by this ruling?  The decision is step in the right direction but fails to make sure that the Ohio statute does not infringe free speech."

The ruling is available here.  The Case now goes back to the Sixth Circuit for further consideration.

Most recent news: On May 20th, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Jerry Brown filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court asking the court to hear an appeal of the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that found a California law banning certain video games unconstitutional.  If the Supreme Court takes the case, it will be the first time it has considered any of the recent spate of laws restricting or banning certain video games.  Reaction from Media Coalition and others can be found here. 

The Supreme Court is still considering the petition for certiorari in this case.   The Court is not expected to announce the disposition of any pending cert. petitions until late February.

Most recent news: October 8, 2009: Media Coalition filed a reply brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  This case concerns a law that does not use the Miller/Ginsberg definition of 'harmful to minors,' instead prohibiting distribution of sexually explicit materials to minors under 13 under any circumstances and to older minors under 18 for the purpose of arousing or satisfying sexual desires.  Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The Oregon Attorney General's brief was filed on September 25, 2009.