Facts of the Case
After Ohio police found photographs in petitioner Osborne’s home, each of which depicted a nude male adolescent posed in a sexually explicit position, he was convicted of violating
Did Ohio’s ban on the possession of child pornography violate the First Amendment?
The Court held that Ohio could constitutionally proscribe the possession of child pornography. The Court argued that the case at hand was distinct from Stanley v. Georgia, because the interest underlying child pornography prohibitions far exceed the interests justifying the Georgia law at issue in Stanley. Ohio did not rely on a paternalistic interest in regulating Osborne’s mind