Ohio pornography law to be updated

by Kiesha Jenkins
Senior State Writer

Gov. Bob Taft might soon sign a bill updating Ohio’s anti-pornography law, despite some opponents’ claims the bill is unconstitutional.

The bill would update the portion of Ohio’s sex-offense law adding computer images to the list of materials that could contain pornography.

The current sex-offense law includes books, magazines, newspapers, prints, pictures, images, motion-pictures films and music records. The new bill would add images appearing on a computer monitor or television, any images transmitted via e-mail and any image recorded on a computer hard drive or floppy disk.

But Vans Stevenson, the senior vice president of legislative affairs for the Motion Picture Association of America said the language of the bill is too broad and violates the First Amendment.

“The way the law is drafted now, I could go after The Post for publishing accounts about the war on Afghanistan if kids got a hold of it,” Stevenson said.

Kelly Nomina, legislative aide to Rep. Jim Hughes, R ­ Columbus, who sponsored the bill, said the main purpose of the bill was to protect children.

She said the bill would only come into play if people were sending pornographic e-mails and pictures over the Internet with the intention that children see them.

Jen Detwiler, spokesperson for House Speaker Larry Householder, R ­ Glenford, said the bill would update the existing law, which does not include the Internet on its list of materials. The current law was written before the computer age evolved to where it is today.

The bill passed the Senate in January and passed the House Feb. 12.

Householder, Hughes and House attorneys say the bill is constitutional.

“If (Hughes) thought this was something that would need to go to court and would lose, (the House) wouldn’t have passed it,” Nomina said.

Opponents of the law include booksellers, newspaper publishers, broadcasters and the MPAA. These groups feel the bill goes too far in limiting free speech and that the existing Ohio anti-pornography law already violates the First Amendment.

Stevenson said the movie association has opposed any kind of unconstitutional legislation that affects or prohibits the distribution of motion pictures or television for years.

“These laws have never been prosecuted in Ohio because they’ve never been challenged,” Stevenson said.

He also said that Hughes, in an attempt to shore up child pornography laws, failed to correct the underlying problem in Ohio — that the law does not explain what type of material would be harmful to minors, Stevenson said.

While the MPAA is supportive of pornography laws, the organization feels this bill goes too far.   

“We’re suggesting that the governor veto the bill,” Stevenson said.

Raymond Vasvari, the legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, said the ACLU looked into the bill and felt the language of the bill provided an overly broad sweep of what could be considered harmful material.

“We can only imagine the chilling effect (this bill) could have on freedom of expression,” Vasvari said.

He also said the ACLU successfully challenged similar laws in New York and Arizona. The ACLU is also somewhat involved with seven other states, including Ohio.       

Joe Andrews, Taft’s press secretary, said the governor’s office has not looked at the bill, but should in the next few days.

“We’ll receive it soon, and then the governor will decide whether or not he will sign it,” Andrews said.