First Amendment topicsAbout the First Amendment
News Story
Ohio high court upholds virtual child-porn law

By The Associated Press

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A state law that equates virtual child pornography with pornography involving real children is not unconstitutional or at odds with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that protects computer-generated child porn, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled yesterday.

The court’s unanimous ruling in Ohio v. Tooley found that the reference in law to a virtually created image of child porn is only part of the evidence a jury would have to weigh when hearing charges of child pornography.

Roger Tooley, a Portage County man convicted of having child pornography on his computer, argued that real and virtual child porn are indistinguishable.

As a result, he argued, an individual can’t be convicted of child porn if he can’t tell the difference between actual children and child pornography created on a computer.

His attorney, Dean Boland, likened the situation to being charged with speeding without knowing what the speed limit was.

“You can’t convict someone for possessing an image that appears to be real,” he said yesterday. “Not good enough — it has to be real.”

Tooley argued that Ohio’s law conflicted with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 decision rejecting a federal law that banned virtual child pornography as unconstitutional.

In that decision, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court ruled that virtual child pornography was protected speech under the First Amendment and could not be banned by child-pornography laws.

The state Supreme Court yesterday rejected Tooley’s argument and reinstated his conviction after it was thrown out by an appeals court. The justices said Ohio’s law doesn’t go as far as banning virtual child pornography.

Instead, the court called the law a way for a jury to consider whether a person in a photographic depiction of child pornography is really under age. Prosecutors still would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a real child was used before winning a conviction, the court said.

The court also said that accepting Tooley’s arguments would hurt the prosecution of child pornography in Ohio.

“Unless the accused was present when the illicit image was ‘captured’ or the state was able to identify the actual child victim and have that victim testify, prosecutions would be impossible in cases where images are downloaded from the Internet,” Justice Judith Ann Lanziger wrote.

The Portage County prosecutor said the court ensured Ohio could continue to prosecute child pornography.

Otherwise, “the argument would be made in every case, ‘Show me the child, show me the real person,’” Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci said yesterday. “Well, obviously we can’t do that.”

Justice Evelyn Lundberg Stratton said she agreed with the court’s decisiyesterday but also said the U.S. Supreme Court was mistaken in its 2002 ruling.

That decision “turned the First Amendment upside down and will allow child pornography to flourish unabated,” Stratton wrote. “There are limits to First Amendment protections, and the right to possess virtual child pornography, in light of all the evidence of the damage it does to our children, should not be protected.”


Arizona appeals panel splits on child-porn laws

Judges uphold one statute but reject related ban on virtual porn, saying it contradicts U.S. Supreme Court ruling. 08.13.03

N.H. high court finds composite photos aren't child porn
Camp photographer created sexual images by combining the faces of teenage girls with women's bodies. 01.22.08

The PROTECT Act and the First Amendment
By Ambika J. Biggs Legislative effort to safeguard children after parts of CPPA were struck down raises its own free-expression problems concerning virtual child pornography. 08.27.03

PROTECT Act to face high court scrutiny
By Tony Mauro Justices to decide whether latest congressional effort to combat child pornography violates First Amendment. 03.27.07

Virtual child pornography

News summary page
View the latest news stories throughout the First Amendment Center Online.

print this   Print

Last system update: Thursday, November 13, 2008 | 21:17:46
About this site
About the First Amendment
About the First Amendment Center
First Amendment programs
State of the First Amendment

First Reports
Supreme Court
First Amendment publications
First Amendment Center history
Freedom Sings™
First Amendment

Congressional Research Service reports
Guest editorials
FOI material
The First Amendment

Lesson plans
Contact us
Privacy statement
Related links