Osborne v. Ohio: Difference between revisions
From BoyWiki
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Osborne v. Ohio''}} '''''Osborne v. Ohio''''', {{ussc|495|103|1990}}, is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that the Firs...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
'''''Osborne v. Ohio''''', {{ussc|495|103|1990}}, is a [[Supreme Court of the United States]] case in which the Court held that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] allows states to outlaw the mere [[possession of child pornography|possession]], as distinct from the [[distribution of child pornography|distribution]], of child pornography. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens dissented. | '''''Osborne v. Ohio''''', {{ussc|495|103|1990}}, is a [[Supreme Court of the United States]] case in which the Court held that the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution]] allows states to outlaw the mere [[possession of child pornography|possession]], as distinct from the [[distribution of child pornography|distribution]], of child pornography. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens dissented. | ||
Until ''Osborne'', it was unheard of in modern First Amendment law that speech could be banned because of the possibility that someone might use it for nefarious purposes. In this case, the nefarious purpose was | Until ''Osborne'', it was unheard of in modern First Amendment law that speech could be banned because of the possibility that someone might use it for nefarious purposes. In this case, the nefarious purpose was Child pornography as a tool of seduction|using it to seduce new victims or to convince children to submit to sexual violation. | ||
<!-- noteuser4 add section to childporn article rebutting Child pornography being used as a tool of seduction - using it to seduce new victims or to convince children to submit to sexual violation --> | |||
Revision as of 23:32, 3 March 2015
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court held that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. Justices Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens dissented.
Until Osborne, it was unheard of in modern First Amendment law that speech could be banned because of the possibility that someone might use it for nefarious purposes. In this case, the nefarious purpose was Child pornography as a tool of seduction|using it to seduce new victims or to convince children to submit to sexual violation.
