Ohio's legislation makes it a crime to possess or view any material or performance that shows a minor who is not the person's child or ward in a state of nudity, unless the material presented is for a proper purpose or the possessor knows the minor's parents have consented to the material in writing. In penalizing the possession and viewing of offensive material, Ohio claims it will destroy the market for child pornography and prevent the exploitation of children. Other States have also contended that prohibiting the private possession of obscene materials is necessary in statutory schemes prohibiting distribution. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Ohio's statute, but the Supreme Court's analysis may be faulty because the Ohio legislation fails the necessarily stricter constitutional test required to be applied when rights protected by the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendments are proscribed. The sensitivity of child pornography requires that restrictions be narrow in scope and that the conduct to be prohibited be adequately defined. It is concluded that Ohio's approach to preventing child abuse is legislative overkill. 50 footnotes