New York v. Ferber, 81-55

Decision Date02 July 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-55,81-55
Citation102 S.Ct. 3348,73 L.Ed.2d 1113,458 U.S. 747
PartiesNEW YORK, Petitioner v. Paul Ira FERBER
CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Syllabus

A New York statute prohibits persons from knowingly promoting a sexual performance by a child under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such a performance. The statute defines "sexual performance" as any performance that includes sexual conduct by such a child, and "sexual conduct" is in turn defined as actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals. Respondent bookstore proprietor was convicted under the statute for selling films depicting young boys masturbating, and the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment as being both underinclusive and overbroad. The court reasoned that in light of the explicit inclusion of an obscenity standard in a companion statute banning the knowing dissemination of similarly defined material, the statute in question could not be construed to include an obscenity standard, and therefore would prohibit the promotion of materials traditionally entitled to protection under the First Amendment.

Held: As applied to respondent and others who distribute similar material, the statute in question does not violate the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 753-774.

(a) The States are entitled to greater leeway in the regulation of pornographic depictions of children for the following reasons: (1) the legislative judgment that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the physiological, emotional, and mental health of the child, easily passes muster under the First Amendment; (2) the standard of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, for determining what is legally obscene is not a satisfactory solution to the child pornography problem; (3) the advertising and selling of child pornography provide an economic motive for and are thus an integral part of the production of such materials, an activity illegal throughout the Nation; (4) the value of permitting live performances and photographic reproductions of children engaged in lewd exhibitions is exceedingly modest, if not de minimis ; and (5) recognizing and classifying child pornography as a category of material outside the First Amendment's protection is not incompatible with this Court's decisions dealing with what speech is unprotected. When a definable class of material, such as that covered by the New York statute, bears so heavily and pervasively on the welfare of children engaged in its production, the balance of competing interests is clearly struck, and it is permissible to consider these materials as without the First Amendment's protection. Pp. 756-764.

(b) The New York statute describes a category of material the production and distribution of which is not entitled to First Amendment protection. Accordingly, there is nothing unconstitutionally "underinclusive" about the statute, and the State is not barred by the First Amendment from prohibiting the distribution of such unprotected materials produced outside the State. Pp. 764-766.

(c) Nor is the New York statute unconstitutionally overbroad as forbidding the distribution of material with serious literary, scientific, or educational value. The substantial overbreath rule of Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830, applies. This is the paradigmatic case of a state statute whose legitimate reach dwarfs its arguably impermissible applications. "[W]hatever overbreadth may exist should be cured through case-by-case analysis of the fact situations to which [the statute's] sanctions, assertedly, may not be applied." Broadrick v. Oklahoma, supra, at 615-616, 93 S.Ct., at 2917-2918. Pp. 766-774.

52 N.Y.2d 674, 439 N.Y.S.2d 863, 422 N.E.2d 523, reversed and remanded.

Robert M. Pitler, New York City, for petitioner.

Herald Price Fahringer, New York City, for respondent.

Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

At issue in this case is the constitutionality of a New York criminal statute which prohibits persons from knowingly promoting sexual performances by children under the age of 16 by distributing material which depicts such performances.

I

In recent years, the exploitive use of children in the production of pornography has become a serious national problem.1 The Federal Government and 47 States have sought to combat the problem with statutes specifically directed at the production of child pornography. At least half of such statutes do not require that the materials produced be legally obscene. Thirty-five States and the United States Congress have also passed legislation prohibiting the distribution of such materials; 20 States prohibit the distribution of material depicting children engaged in sexual conduct without requiring that the material be legally obscene.2 New York is one of the 20. In 1977, the New York Legislature enacted Article 263 of its Penal Law. N.Y. Penal Law, Art. 263 (McKinney 1980). Section 263.05 criminalizes as a class C felony the use of a child in a sexual performance:

"A person is guilty of the use of a child in a sexual performance if knowing the character and content thereof he employs, authorizes or induces a child less than sixteen years of age to engage in a sexual performance or being a parent, legal guardian or custodian of such child he consents to the participation by such child in a sexual performance."

A "[s]exual performance" is defined as "any performance or part thereof which includes sexual conduct by a child less than sixteen years of age." § 263.00(1). "Sexual conduct" is in turn defined in § 263.00(3):

" 'Sexual conduct' means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, sado-masochistic abuse, or lewd exhibition of the genitals."

A performance is defined as "any play, motion picture, photograph or dance" or "any other visual representation exhibited before an audience." § 263.00(4).

At issue in this case is § 263.15, defining a class D felony: 3

"A person is guilty of promoting a sexual performance by a child when, knowing the character and content thereof, he produces, directs or promotes any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than sixteen years of age."

To "promote" is also defined:

" 'Promote' means to procure, manufacture, issue, sell, give, provide, lend, mail, deliver, transfer, transmute, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit or advertise, or to offer or agree to do the same." § 263.00(5).

A companion provision bans only the knowing dissemination of obscene material. § 263.10.

This case arose when Paul Ferber, the proprietor of a Man- hattan bookstore specializing in sexually oriented products, sold two films to an undercover police officer. The films are devoted almost exclusively to depicting young boys masturbating. Ferber was indicted on two counts of violating § 263.10 and two counts of violating § 263.15, the two New York laws controlling dissemination of child pornography.4 After a jury trial, Ferber was acquitted of the two counts of promoting an obscene sexual performance, but found guilty of the two counts under § 263.15, which did not require proof that the films were obscene. Ferber's convictions were affirmed without opinion by the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. 74 A.D.2d 558, 424 N.Y.S.2d 967 (1980).

The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 263.15 violated the First Amendment. 52 N.Y.2d 674, 439 N.Y.S.2d 863, 422 N.E.2d 523 (1981). The court began by noting that in light of § 263.10's explicit inclusion of an obscenity standard, § 263.15 could not be construed to include such a standard. Therefore, "the statute would . . . prohibit the promotion of materials which are traditionally entitled to constitutional protection from government interference under the First Amendment." 52 N.Y.2d, at 678, 439 N.Y.S.2d, at 865, 422 N.E.2d, at 525. Although the court recognized the State's "legitimate interest in protecting the welfare of minors" and noted that this "interest may transcend First Amendment concerns," id., at 679, 439 N.Y.S.2d, at 866, 422 N.E.2d, at 525-526, it nevertheless found two fatal defects in the New York statute. Section 263.15 was underinclusive because it discriminated against visual portrayals of children engaged in sexual activity by not also prohibiting the distribution of films of other dangerous activity. It was also overbroad because it prohibited the distribution of materials produced outside the State, as well as materials, such as medical books and educational sources, which "deal with adolescent sex in a realistic but nonobscene manner." 52 N.Y.2d, at 681, 439 N.Y.S.2d, at 866, 422 N.E.2d, at 526. Two judges dissented. We granted the State's petition for certiorari, 454 U.S. 1052, 102 S.Ct. 595, 70 L.Ed.2d 587 (1981), presenting the single question:

"To prevent the abuse of children who are made to engage in sexual conduct for commercial purposes, could the New York State Legislature, consistent with the First Amendment, prohibit the dissemination of material which shows children engaged in sexual conduct, regardless of whether such material is obscene?"

II

The Court of Appeals proceeded on the assumption that the standard of obscenity incorporated in § 263.10, which follows the guidelines enunciated in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 37 L.Ed.2d 419 (1973),5 constitutes the appropriate line dividing protected from unprotected expression by which to measure a regulation directed at child pornography. It was on the premise that "nonobscene adolescent sex" could not be singled out for special...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2092 cases
  • Hodgkins v. Peterson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana
    • November 6, 2001
    ...otherwise valid criminal laws....'" Los Angeles Police Dep't, 528 U.S. at 39-40, 120 S.Ct. 483 (quoting New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 770, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982)). When deciding a facial overbreadth challenge, "a court's first task is to determine whether the enactment r......
  • Hardwick ex rel. Hardwick v. Heyward, Civil Action No. 4:06-1042-TLW.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina
    • September 8, 2009
    ...be invalidated for overbreadth "unless it reaches a substantial number of impermissible applications," New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 771, 102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982), and the policy is not susceptible to a reasonable limiting construction that would render the policy constitu......
  • Mathews v. Harris
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • January 9, 2017
    ...(Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) 535 U.S. 234, 249 [122 S.Ct. 1389, 152 L.Ed.2d 403]..., citing New York v. Ferber (1982) 458 U.S. 747, 759–760 [102 S.Ct. 3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113] ; see [Osborne , supra ,] 495 U.S. 103, 109–110 ....) Under either rationale, child pornography is proxi......
  • Verhovec v. City of Trotwood
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 25, 2015
    ...that right does not extend to possession of obscene matter which includes depictions of minors engaged in sexual conduct. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)(child pornography is not protected speech). In Neinast, the Sixth Circuit held that the right to obtain information at a public l......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 books & journal articles
  • Rules of Statutory and Legal Interpretation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2018 Contents
    • August 17, 2018
    ...as being unconstitutionally vague provided it gives fair warning to the defendant as to what conduct it proscribes. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct.3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). In order to mount a successful attack on the basis that a statute is facially unconstitutional, a defe......
  • Federal sentencing
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Prison Guidebook Preliminary Sections
    • April 30, 2022
    ...at www.fbi.gov/news/ testimony/oversight-of-the-federal-bureau-of-investigation-1 (accessed January 17, 2017). New York v. Ferber , 458 U.S. 747, 759 (1982) Osborne v. Ohio , 495 U.S. 103, 109 (1990) United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2010) The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational......
  • Rules of statutory and legal interpretation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • May 5, 2022
    ...as being unconstitutionally vague provided it gives fair warning to the defendant as to what conduct it proscribes. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct.3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). In order to mount a successful attack on the basis that a statute is facially unconstitutional, a defe......
  • Rules of Statutory and Legal Interpretation
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1 - 2019 Contents
    • August 16, 2019
    ...as being unconstitutionally vague provided it gives fair warning to the defendant as to what conduct it proscribes. New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 102 S.Ct.3348, 73 L.Ed.2d 1113 (1982). In order to mount a successful attack on the basis that a statute is facially unconstitutional, a defe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 provisions
  • PL 108-21, S 151 – An Act to prevent child abduction and the sexual exploitation of children, and for other purposes.
    • United States
    • U.S. Public Laws
    • January 1, 2003
    ...of sexual exploitation and abuse of children  constitutes a government objective of surpassing importance,''  New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 757 (1982), and this interest  extends to stamping out the vice of child pornography at all  levels in the distribution chain. Osborne v. Ohio, 495......
  • Act 607, SB 432
    • United States
    • Arkansas Session Laws
    • January 1, 1991
    ...been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Osborne v. Ohio, 58 U.S.L.W. 4467 (U.S. April 18, 1990) (No. 88-5968); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). See also Ala Code 13A-12-192 (1988); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 13-2552 (1989); Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-6-403 (Supp. 1989); Fla. Stat. 827.0......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT