2009), is a decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals involving a constitutional challenge—both facially and as-applied to internet communications—to an Ohio statute prohibiting the dissemination or display to juveniles of certain sexually-explicit materials or performances.

The Sixth Circuit panel declined to resolve the constitutional issue but, instead, certified two questions to the Ohio Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the statute.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio Revised Code §2907.01(E) and (J), which prohibited the dissemination or display of "materials harmful to juveniles", unconstitutionally violated both the First Amendment and the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

[4] The district court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the statute as applied to internet communications because it was unconstitutionally overbroad and failed strict scrutiny, but rejected a challenge under the Commerce Clause.

The court held the statute unconstitutional because the statute's definition of "material harmful to minors" did not comply with two United States Supreme Court decisions – Miller v. California and Ginsberg v. New York – which defined the constitutional standards for the regulation of obscenity and the regulation of material deemed "harmful to minors.

Defendants appealed the district court's determination that the section of the statute governing internet dissemination, § 2907.31(D), was unconstitutionally overbroad and violative of the First Amendment.

Adults engaged in otherwise constitutionally protected speech could therefore become criminally liable under the statute, simply because the material posted was viewed by a minor.

§ 2907.31(D) to limit the scope of § 2907.31(A), as applied to electronic communications, to personally directed devices such as instant messaging, person-to-person e-mails, and private chat rooms?

[19] On January 27, 2010, the Court issued its decision, answering both the Sixth Circuit's questions affirmatively, and adopting the statutory construction advocated by the Attorney General.

With regard to the second question, the Court concluded that "a person who posts matter harmful to juveniles on generally accessible websites and in public chat rooms does not violate R.C.