State v. Eichorn

In State v. Eichorn, Morrow App. No. 02 CA 953, 2003 Ohio 3415, the court found that R.C. 2907.321 did not seek to prohibit virtual child pornography. The Eichorn court, therefore, held that R.C. 2907.321 did not prohibit constitutionally protected speech, and was not overbroad. "The main distinction between the CPPA and the statutes under consideration is that the CPPA sought to prohibit virtual child pornography, that is, materials that appear to depict minors but were produced by means other than using real children. The statutes appellant challenges only prohibit materials produced by the use of real children and permit the trier of fact to infer that the person depicted in the material is in fact a minor if through the material's title, text, visual representation, or otherwise, the material represents or depicts the person as a minor. The state laws appellant challenges do not prohibit virtual child pornography, only pornography produced by the use of real children." State v. Eichorn, Morrow App. No. 02 CA 953, 2003 Ohio 3415.