an effort to consider the meaning of the term “nudity” in
state law
child pornography
prohibition. The appeals courts in Ohio have been divided regarding how
the word should be interpreted in cases involving materials that have
been developed, produced, or created showing nude minors.The split in opinion stems from the views of the decision put forth by
the Ohio State Supreme Court in the 1988 case
State v. Young. This was a case in which a separate provision was reviewed by the Court.
The provision bans the possession or viewing of material involving nude
children. However, the provision allows the possession or viewing of these
images if the minor is not their child, and only if they have written
consent from the child’s parents. From the
Young side of the court, this was believed to protect innocent conduct, but
would still punish individuals who used the images for lewd acts or involved
a direct, graphic focus on the minor’s genitals.
The current case involving Terry L. Martin,
State v. Martin, focuses on the recording of an 11-year-old female as she was undressing
for a shower, drying off, and then dressing. In 2013, Martin was convicted
and sentenced to five years in prison for the production of illegal material
that displayed a nude minor. Martin’s attorneys state that the governing
law regarding producing and creating nude images of minors should also
be limited to depictions of “lewd exhibitions or a graphic focus
on the genitals.” They believe the statute is too broad, and is
thus unconstitutional.
The state argues this assertion, stating that the First Amendment right
of freedom of speech is not affected by the law and that the meaning of
“nudity” in these cases does not need to be narrowed. Rather,
the state believes that the statute legitimately regulates the creation
of child pornography.
Call Koffel Brininger Nesbitt today to learn more.
CALL OR TEXT (614) 884-1100 OR COMPLETE A CASE EVALUATION FORM
