Task: Text Completion
Input (English): indicated a willingness to consider additional factors. See Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 110-11, 110 S.Ct. 1691, 109 L.Ed.2d 98 (1990). In Osborne, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether Ohio could ban the possession of child pornography. Id. at 108, 110 S.Ct. 1691. In finding it could, the Court relied not only on the harm caused to the children who are used in its production (i.e., Ferber), but also on the harm that children suffer when child pornography is used to seduce or coerce them into sexual activity. Id. at 111, 110 S.Ct. 1691. Thus, in Osborne, the Court indicated that protecting children who are not actually pictured in the pornographic image is a legitimate and compelling state interest. See Id. See also United States v. Hilton, 167 F.3d 61, 70 (1st Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 115, — 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that competing interests of parents children and the state requires additional analysis (B) recognizing that because the state has cognizable interests in the safety of children in its jurisdiction neglectful parents may be separated from their children (C) holding that the governments interest in the welfare of children embraces not only protecting children from physical abuse but also protecting childrens interest in the privacy and dignity of their homes and in the lawfully exercised authority of their parents (D) recognizing minnesotas interest in protecting the interests of the child (E) recognizing the supreme courts subtle yet crucial extension of valid state interests to include protecting children not actually depicted
Output (English): (E)