Court Opinion

ID: 9623898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:45:43.132988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:36.365456
License: Public Domain

Hunt, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that to rectify the statute’s facially unconstitutional overbreadth, we must construe it so that the depiction of a minor be limited to a photographic representation of a “minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct.” In Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U. S. _ (110 SC 1691, 1696, 109 LE2d 98) (1990), the United States Supreme Court upheld Ohio’s law banning the possession of child pornography, noting the state’s compelling interest in “ ‘safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor.’ ” This interest is served by banning the possession of child pornography that is based on the use of a live child model. It is not served by, nor is there a legitimate basis for, legislation prohibiting other clearly constitutionally protected materials which “depict” a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined in OCGA § 16-12-100 (4).3 Aman’s conviction, based on his possession of pornographic videotapes of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct and magazines containing photographs of children engaged in such conduct, is properly affirmed.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Smith joins in this concurrence.
*672Decided October 21, 1991 —
Reconsideration denied November 8, 1991.
G. Wayne Lancaster, for appellant.
Gerald N. Blaney, Jr., Solicitor, for appellee.

 The Ohio statute under consideration in Osborne v. Ohio, supra, clearly exempts from prosecution the possession of art, literature, and other constitutionally protected works. Rev. Code Ann. 2907.323 (A) (3) (Supp. 1989). Id. at 110 SC 694. While OCGA § 16-12-100 (d) contains certain limited exemptions, possession of artistic or literary works is not among them.