Summary

Byron White Osborne v. Ohio — Opinion of the Court

In our previous decisions discussing the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, we have repeatedly emphasized that where a statute regulates expressive conduct, the scope of the statute does not render it unconstitutional unless its overbreadth is not only "real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Osborne v. Ohio — Opinion of the Court

The clear purpose of these exceptions . . . is to sanction the possession or viewing of material depicting nude minors where that conduct is morally innocent. Thus, the only conduct prohibited by the statute is conduct which is not morally innocent, i.e., the possession or viewing of the described material for prurient purposes. So construed, the statute's proscription is not so broad as to outlaw all depictions of minors in a state of nudity, but rather only those depictions which constitute child pornography.
Source: Wikisource

Byron White Osborne v. Ohio — Opinion of the Court

We normally do not allow a defendant to challenge a law as it is applied to others. In the First Amendment context, however, we have said that " [b] ecause of the sensitive nature of constitutionally protected expression, we have not required that all those subject to overbroad regulations risk prosecution to test their rights. For free expression-of transcendent value to all society, and not merely to those exercising their rights-might be the loser."
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature