American Booksellers Foundation v. Strickland
Decision Date | 15 April 2010 |
Docket Number | 07-4376.,No. 07-4375,07-4375 |
Citation | 601 F.3d 622 |
Parties | AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS FOUNDATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION, Association of American Publishers, Inc., Freedom to Read Foundation, National Association of Recording Merchandisers, Ohio Newspapers Association, Sexual Health Network, Inc., Video Software Dealers Association, Web Del Sol, Marty Klein, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. Ted STRICKLAND, Defendant, Richard Cordray, Ron O'Brien, Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
ARGUED: Benjamin C. Mizer, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants. Michael A. Bamberger, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Benjamin C. Mizer, William P. Marshall, Michael Dominic Meuti, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants. Michael A. Bamberger, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, New York, New York, Jennifer M. Kinsley, H. Louis Sirkin, Sirkin, Kinsley & Nazzarine, Cincinnati, Ohio, for Appellees.
Before MARTIN and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges; CARR, Chief District Judge.*
Plaintiffs sued Ohio's Attorney General and county prosecutors, arguing that Ohio Revised Code § 2907.31(D)(1), which criminalizes sending juveniles material that is harmful to them, is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and Commerce Clause. The district court permanently enjoined its enforcement "as applied to internet communications" on the basis that it is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment. Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 512 F.Supp.2d 1082, 1106 (S.D.Ohio 2007). Defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed the district court's decision that the law is not void for vagueness and does not violate the Commerce Clause. We certified the question of the scope of the statute to the Ohio Supreme Court. Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, 447 (6th Cir. 2009). The Ohio Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that the statute applied only to personally directed electronic communications and that it did not apply to generally accessible communications. Am. Booksellers Found. v. Cordray, 124 Ohio St.3d 329, 922 N.E.2d 192, 195 (2010). As the scope of the statute is limited to personally directed electronic communications, as currently available or developed in the future, we find that the statute does not violate the First Amendment or the Commerce Clause. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court's entry of judgment for the plaintiffs and REMAND the case to the district court with instructions to vacate the permanent injunction and enter judgment for defendants.
Plaintiffs, who include publishers, retailers, and web site operators, originally filed a lawsuit in 2002 seeking to enjoin defendants from enforcing O.R.C. § 2907.01(E) & (J) (2002), which, at that time, prohibited the dissemination or display of "materials harmful to juveniles." The district court granted a preliminary injunction because the statute's definition of "harmful to juveniles" did not comport with the Supreme Court's test in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973), as previously applied to juveniles in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 20 L.Ed.2d 195 (1968), commonly referred to as the Miller-Ginsberg test. Bookfriends, Inc. v. Taft, 223 F.Supp.2d 932, 945 (S.D.Ohio 2002). To determine whether something is obscene, the Miller-Ginsberg test asks:
(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Reno v. Am. Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, 872, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997) (quoting Miller, 413 U.S. at 24, 93 S.Ct. 2607). Defendants appealed, but before this Court heard the case, the Ohio General Assembly amended the statute in 2003. As a result, this Court remanded the case to the district court.
As amended, Section 2907.31(A) now provides:
Section 2907.01(E) defines "harmful to juveniles":
The two "internet provisions," sections 2907.31(D)(1) and (2), provide: (D)(1) A person directly sells, delivers, furnishes, disseminates, provides, exhibits, rents, or presents or directly offers or agrees to sell, deliver, furnish, disseminate, provide, exhibit, rent, or present material or a performance to a juvenile, a group of juveniles, a law enforcement officer posing as a juvenile, or a group of law enforcement officers posing as juveniles in violation of this section by means of an electronic method of remotely transmitting information if the person knows or has reason to believe that the person receiving the information is a juvenile or the group of persons receiving the information are juveniles.
Back in the district court, plaintiffs amended their complaint to challenge the statute as revised, and in 2003 the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted both parties' motions in part and denied them in part in 2004, but it did not file its decision until September 2007. It permanently enjoined the enforcement of O.R.C. § 2907.31(D) as applied to internet communications. Am. Booksellers, 512 F.Supp.2d at 1106. The court determined that the law violated the First Amendment because the internet provisions were unconstitutionally overbroad, id. at 1095, and because the statute failed strict scrutiny. Id. at 1097. The district court also concluded that the definition of "harmful to juveniles" in the new statute conformed to the Miller-Ginsberg standard, id. at 1092, and thus rejected plaintiffs' void-for-vagueness challenge. Id. at 1099. Finally, the court also rejected a challenge under the Commerce Clause. Id. at 1105. Defendants appealed and plaintiffs cross-appealed.
On March 19, 2009, following oral argument, we sua sponte certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Ohio for review:
Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 560 F.3d 443, 447 (6th Cir.2009).
On January 27, 2010, the Ohio Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative, holding "that the scope of section 2907.31(D) is limited to electronic communications that can be personally directed, because otherwise the sender of matter harmful to juveniles cannot know or have reason to believe that a particular recipient is a juvenile." Am. Booksellers Found. v. Cordray, 124 Ohio St.3d 329, 922 N.E.2d 192, 195 (2010). The court went on to hold that "a person who posts matter harmful to juveniles on generally accessible websites and in public chat rooms does not violate section 2907.31(D), because such a posting does not enable that person to `prevent a particular recipient from receiving the information.'"...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Doe v. Lee
...number of instances exist in which the law cannot be applied constitutionally.’ ") (quoting Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland , 601 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2010) ) (emphasis added); accordSpeet v. Schuette , 726 F.3d 867, 878 (6th Cir. 2013) (comparing the ample recor......
-
Speet v. Schuette
...be applied constitutionally.’ ” United States v. Coss, 677 F.3d 278, 289 (6th Cir.2012) (quoting Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir.2010)). A plaintiff may not “leverag[e] a few alleged unconstitutional applications of the statute into a rul......
-
Doe v. Rausch
...number of instances exist in which the law cannot be applied constitutionally.’ ") (quoting Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland , 601 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2010) ) (emphasis added); accord Speet v. Schuette , 726 F.3d 867, 878 (6th Cir. 2013) (comparing the ample reco......
-
Doe v. Rausch
...number of instances exist in which the law cannot be applied constitutionally.'" (quoting Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 622, 627 (6th Cir. 2010)) (emphasis added); accord Speet v. Schuette, 726 F.3d 867, 878 (6th Cir. 2013) (comparing the ample record be......
-
COMPUTER CRIMES
...(2007). 409. See, e.g., MICH. COMP. LAWS § 750.411s(2)(b)(v) (2020). 410. See Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 622, 628 (6th Cir. 2010) (overturning a district court’s finding that an Ohio statute prohibiting dissemination of materials harmful to minors ov......
-
Computer Crimes
...internet were unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment); Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 622, 628 (6th Cir. 2010) (upholding an Ohio law that prohibited dissemination of materials harmful to minors over the internet because the law ......
-
Computer Crimes
...were unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment) with Am. Booksellers Found. for Free Expression v. Strickland, 601 F.3d 622, 628 (6th Cir. 2010) (upholding an Ohio law that prohibited dissemination of materials harmful to minors over the internet because the law was n......