|
|
|
ABFFE v. Strickland
Documents: 1.
Ohio House Bill 8 History: On May 6, 2002, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court in Dayton, Ohio, challenging an Ohio statutory amendment. Part of the amendment defines "harmful to juveniles" as including material that contains depictions or descriptions of violence, cruelty, foul words, and glorification of crime. The statute also applies the harmful to minors law to the internet in a manner similar to laws challenged in Arizona, New Mexico, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Vermont, and Virginia. On August 2, 2002, District Court Judge Rice granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the Ohio statute because the definition of "harmful to juveniles" is unconstitutionally overbroad. The case was appealed to the Sixth Circuit. Subsequently, the Ohio legislature adopted an amendment in December 2002 which eliminates most of the overbroad problems with the definition of "harmful to juveniles," but does not correct the unconstitutionality of the application of the law to the internet. The Attorney General's office made a motion with the Sixth Circuit to remand the case to Judge Rice for further action in light of the amendment. The Sixth Circuit remanded the case in late June, 2003 and ordered that the preliminary injunction remain in effect. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 6, 2003 and a motion for summary judgment on September 22, 2003. On September 27, 2004, District Court Judge Rice sustained in part and overruled in part the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and the defendants' summary judgment motion. On September 24, 2007, the judge issued a final opinion striking down the "harmful to minors" statute as applied to the Internet on First Amendment grounds. In February 2008, the state appealed the ruling in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in March plaintiffs appealed the part of the ruling that found the law did not violate the Commerce Clause. This page was last updated April 2, 2008. |
