Thus, overbreadth analysis is inappropriate under Bigelow v. As a practical matter, the intervening amendment of the statute moots the overbreadth question in this case. JUSTICE O'CONNOR, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHlTE, and JUSTICE KENNEDY, concluded that:ġ. Held: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded.Ĥ01 Mass. Subsequently, § 29A was amended to add a 'lascivious intent' requirement to the 'nudity' portion of the statute and to eliminate exemptions contained in the prior version. It concluded that § 29A criminalized conduct that virtually every person would regard as lawful, such as the taking of family photographs of nude infants. was speech for First Amendment purposes, the court struck down the statute as substantially overbroad under the First Amendment without addressing whether § 29A could be constitutionally applied to Oakes. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed the conviction. He was indicted, tried, and convicted of violating a Massachusetts statute (§ 29A) prohibiting adults from posing or exhibiting minors 'in a state of nudity' for purposes of visual representation or reproduction in any publication, motion picture, photograph, or picture. In 1984, respondent Oakes took color photographs of his partially nude and physically mature 14-year-old stepdaughter, L.S.
