stating that a statute prohibiting possession of “nude” photographs of minors might not be unconstitutionally overbroad in light of the statute’s exemptions and “proper purposes” provisions, in any event, statute was constitutional under state court’s construction, which limited operation of statute to lewd depictions of nudity or graphic focus on the genitals
How later courts described this case
- stating that a statute prohibiting possession of “nude” photographs of minors might not be unconstitutionally overbroad in light of the statute’s exemptions and “proper purposes” provisions, in any event, statute was constitutional under state court’s construction, which limited operation of statute to lewd depictions of nudity or graphic focus on the genitals
- finding that it is "surely reasonable for the State to conclude that it will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand" while upholding an Ohio pornography statute against a First Amendment challenge
- reasoning that state supreme court’s construction of state statute foreclosed overbreadth challenge partly because construction required proof that nudity depicted “constitutes a lewd exhibition or involves a graphic focus on the genitals”
- explaining that where a state supreme court narrows the meaning of a vague statute, a previous conviction under that statute should only be reversed if the defendant would not have been convicted under the statute as interpreted
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Limited by United States v. Bowersox, 72 M.J. 71 (2013)
ded) (finding that “[the] right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth ... takes on an added dimension”&emdash;“the [fundamental] right to be free ... from unwanted governmental intrusions into one’s privacy”&emdash;where the prosecution is for “mere possession of [obscene] matter in the privacy of a person’s own home”); and (3) Stanley has been strictly limited to its facts, see Osborne,…
Distinguished
Distinguished by Bolles v. State, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 6615 (2016)
Savery had not made a constitutional challenge to the Texas statute like the challenge at issue in Osborne, but the Court observed that Osborne was inapplicable anyway because section 43.26 "prohibits the display of children ‘engaging in sexual conduct’ ” rather than displays of nudity.
The opinion
Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion. I write separately only to express my agreement with Justice Brennan, see post, at 146, n. 20, that this Court’s ability to entertain Osborne’s due process claim premised on the failure of the trial court to charge the “lewd exhibition” and “graphic focus” elements does not depend upon his objection to this failure at trial.