In this article
, C|Net reports that a federal judge has struck down as unconstitutional a portion of an Ohio statute which attempted to prevent minors from seeing material which would be "harmful" to them, but was so overbroad that it would have covered a considerable amount of material which is legal for adults to view. Basically, if a website operator had reason to believe the material they were showing was visible to minors, and if the material was considered to be harmful to them, they would be in violation of the law. Since about 1/6 of the users of the Internet are minors, it's trivial to argue that anyone running a website would be aware that the material they have is visible to minors even if they had no intention of doing so. If the decision is upheld by an appeals court - very likely in view of similar bans which have been struck down - the state of Ohio could be liable for the plaintiffs' attorneys fees, "which amounted to a requested $488,601 in a similar Internet censorship suit in Virginia."