Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2907
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.35 (2026)

Presumptions in obscenity cases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 1, 2004
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 490 - 124th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) An owner or manager, or agent or employee of an owner or manager, of a bookstore, newsstand, theater, or other commercial establishment engaged in selling materials or exhibiting performances, who, in the course of business:

(1) Possesses five or more identical or substantially similar obscene articles, having knowledge of their character, is presumed to possess them in violation of division (A)(5) of section 2907.32 of the Revised Code;

(2) Does any of the acts prohibited by section 2907.31 or 2907.32 of the Revised Code, is presumed to have knowledge of the character of the material or performance involved, if the owner, manager, or agent or employee of the owner or manager has actual notice of the nature of such material or performance, whether or not the owner, manager, or agent or employee of the owner or manager has precise knowledge of its contents.

(B) Without limitation on the manner in which such notice may be given, actual notice of the character of material or a performance may be given in writing by the chief legal officer of the jurisdiction in which the person to whom the notice is directed does business. Such notice, regardless of the manner in which it is given, shall identify the sender, identify the material or performance involved, state whether it is obscene or harmful to juveniles, and bear the date of such notice.

(C) Sections 2907.31 and 2907.32 of the Revised Code do not apply to a motion picture operator or projectionist acting within the scope of employment as an employee of the owner or manager of a theater or other place for the showing of motion pictures to the general public, and having no managerial responsibility or financial interest in the operator's or projectionist's place of employment, other than wages.

(D)(1) Sections 2907.31, 2907.311, 2907.32, 2907.321, 2907.322, 2907.323, and 2907.34 and division (A) of section 2907.33 of the Revised Code do not apply to a person solely because the person provided access or connection to or from an electronic method of remotely transferring information not under that person's control, including having provided capabilities that are incidental to providing access or connection to or from the electronic method of remotely transferring the information, and that do not include the creation of the content of the material that is the subject of the access or connection.

(2) Division (D)(1) of this section does not apply to a person who conspires with an entity actively involved in the creation or knowing distribution of material in violation of section 2907.31, 2907.311, 2907.32, 2907.321, 2907.322, 2907.323, 2907.33, or 2907.34 of the Revised Code or who knowingly advertises the availability of material of that nature.

(3) Division (D)(1) of this section does not apply to a person who provides access or connection to an electronic method of remotely transferring information that is engaged in the violation of section 2907.31, 2907.311, 2907.32, 2907.321, 2907.322, 2907.323, 2907.33, or 2907.34 of the Revised Code and that contains content that person has selected and introduced into the electronic method of remotely transferring information or content over which that person exercises editorial control.

(E) An employer is not guilty of a violation of section 2907.31, 2907.311, 2907.32, 2907.321, 2907.322, 2907.323, 2907.33, or 2907.34 of the Revised Code based on the actions of an employee or agent of the employer unless the employee's or agent's conduct is within the scope of employee's or agent's employment or agency, and the employer does either of the following:

(1) With knowledge of the employee's or agent's conduct, the employer authorizes or ratifies the conduct.

(2) The employer recklessly disregards the employee's or agent's conduct.

(F) It is an affirmative defense to a charge under section 2907.31 or 2907.311 of the Revised Code as the section applies to an image transmitted through the internet or another electronic method of remotely transmitting information that the person charged with violating the section has taken, in good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by juveniles to material that is harmful to juveniles, including any method that is feasible under available technology.

(G) If any provision of this section, or the application of any provision of this section to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this section or related sections that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. To this end, the provisions are severable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1977–2002 · leading case: Pack v. City of Cleveland, 438 N.E.2d 434 (Ohio 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pack v. City of Cleveland, 438 N.E.2d 434 (Ohio 1982). · cites it 24× “35 (C) is that it creates a classification in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that it distinguishes between motion picture projectionists who have no managerial responsibility or financial interest in…”
City of Cleveland v. Buckley, 588 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “R.C. 2907.35(A)(2) provides that an employee of a bookstore engaged in selling materials, who, in the course of business does any of the acts prohibited by R.”
City of Urbana ex rel. Newlin v. Downing, 539 N.E.2d 140 (Ohio 1989). “013, presumptions; notice; defense, parallels R.C. 2907.35. It provides: “(A) An owner or manager, or his agent or employee, of a bookstore, newsstand, theater, or other commercial establishment engaged in selling materials or exhibiting performances, who, in the course of…”
Bookfriends, Inc. v. Taft, 223 F. Supp. 2d 932 (S.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 2× “01(J) and portions of § 2907.35, is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment, is void for vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and violates the Commerce Clause, Article 1, § 8 to the United States Constitution.”
State v. Loshin, 517 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “32(A) requires proof that the accused have “knowledge of the character of the material,” and R.C. 2907.35(A)(2) 7 provides a presumption that the owner of a sales organization has knowledge of the character of the material if he has actual notice of the nature of the material.”
Sovereign News Co. v. Falke, 448 F. Supp. 306 (N.D. Ohio 1977). “See also, Ohio Revised Code § 2907.35. 356 . In Erznoznik, supra, the court stated the standard for substantial overbreadth as being whether a state statute is “readily subject to *405 narrowing construction by the state [court].”
State v. White, 584 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “” R.C. 2907.35(A)(2) allows for a presumption of that “knowledge” when: “(A) An owner or manager, or his agent or employee, of a bookstore, newsstand, theater, or other commercial establishment engaged in selling materials or exhibiting performances, who, in the course of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.35(A)(2) — 4 cases
City of Cleveland v. Buckley, 588 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “R.C. 2907.35(A)(2) provides that an employee of a bookstore engaged in selling materials, who, in the course of business does any of the acts prohibited by R.”
State v. Loshin, 517 N.E.2d 229 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “32(A) requires proof that the accused have “knowledge of the character of the material,” and R.C. 2907.35(A)(2) 7 provides a presumption that the owner of a sales organization has knowledge of the character of the material if he has actual notice of the nature of the material.”
Pack v. City of Cleveland, 438 N.E.2d 434 (Ohio 1982). “35 (C) is that it creates a classification in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that it distinguishes between motion picture projectionists who have no managerial responsibility or financial interest in…”
State v. White, 584 N.E.2d 1255 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “” R.C. 2907.35(A)(2) allows for a presumption of that “knowledge” when: “(A) An owner or manager, or his agent or employee, of a bookstore, newsstand, theater, or other commercial establishment engaged in selling materials or exhibiting performances, who, in the course of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.35(C) — 1 case
Pack v. City of Cleveland, 438 N.E.2d 434 (Ohio 1982). “35 (C) is that it creates a classification in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, in that it distinguishes between motion picture projectionists who have no managerial responsibility or financial interest in…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.35(D) — 1 case
Bookfriends, Inc. v. Taft, 223 F. Supp. 2d 932 (S.D. Ohio 2002). “01(J) and portions of § 2907.35, is overbroad in violation of the First Amendment, is void for vagueness in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and violates the Commerce Clause, Article 1, § 8 to the United States Constitution.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.