
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul Ira Ferber, Appellant.
    Argued October 13, 1982
    decided October 21, 1982
    
      POINTS OF COUNSEL
    
      Herald, Price Fahringer and Paul J. Cambria, Jr., for appellant.
    This court’s original decision, declaring unconstitutional section 263.15 of the Penal Law because it prohibits the promotion of nonobscene sexual performances by a minor, should be sustained under New York’s free speech clause contained in section 8 of article I of our State Constitution. (Cooper v Morin, 49 NY2d 69, cert den sub nom. Lombard v Cooper, 446 US 984; Roth v United States, 354 US 476; People v Richmond County News, 9 NY2d 578; Mishkin v New York, 383 US 502; Bellanca v New York State Liq. Auth., 54 NY2d 228.)
    
      Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (.Robert M. Pitler, Mark Dwyer and Donald J. Siewert of counsel), for respondent.
    Section 263.15 of the Penal Law is in complete accord with the free speech and press clause of the State Constitution. (Bellanca v New York State Liq. Auth., 54 NY2d 228; Doran v Salem Inn, 422 US 922; People v Ponder, 54 NY2d 160; Matter of Koffler, 51 NY2d 140, 450 US 1026; People v Kahan, 15 NY2d 311; Barry E. v Ingraham, 43 NY2d 87; United States v Various Arts, of Obscene 
      
      Mdse., 600 F2d 394; Miller v California, 413 US 15; Broadrick v Oklahoma, 413 US 601.)
    
      Edmund J. Burns, Gregory A. Loken and William A. Cahill, Jr., for Covenant House, amicus curiae.
    
    I. The production and distribution of child pornography produce harms to children of such intensity as to become compelling concerns of the State. (Finlay v Finlay, 240 NY 429.) II. Article XVII of the New York Constitution mandates the protection of sexually exploited children from the harms of distribution of child pornography. (Matter of Sanjivini K., 40 NY2d 1025; Matter of Storar, 52 NY2d 363; Matter of Bennett v Jeffreys, 40 NY2d 543; People v Ewer, 141 NY 129; Sinhogar v Parry, 53 NY2d 424; Matter of Bates v Toia, 45 NY2d 460; Bartels v County of Westchester, 76 AD2d 517; Matter of Lee v Smith, 43 NY2d 453; Tucker v Toia, 43 NY2d 1; Matter of Bernstein v Toia, 43 NY2d 437.) III. The State Constitution’s protection of “liberty of speech” has no application to the statute in question, which is a proper exercise of the State’s paternal power on behalf of sexually exploited children. (Pathe Exch. v Cobb, 202 App Div 450, 236 NY 539; Board of Educ. v Nyquist, 57 NY2d 27; Matter of United Press Assns. v Valente, 308 NY 71; Matter of Westchester Rockland Newspapers v Leggett, 48 NY2d 430; Richmond Newspapers v Virginia, 448 US 555; People v Street, 20 NY2d 231; Ali v Playgirl, Inc., 447 F Supp 723; Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 US 568; Bookcase, Inc. v Broderick, 18 NY2d 71, app dsmd sub nom. Bookcase, Inc. v Leary, 385 US 12.) IV. This case presents no fit occasion for considering the statute’s validity with respect to literary, scientific and educational materials. (Karaduman v Newsday, Inc., 51 NY2d 531; Cianci v New Times Pub. Co., 639 F2d 54; Lerman v Chuckleberry Pub., 496 F Supp 1105; Ali v Playgirl, Inc., 447 F Supp 723; Hidley v Rockefeller, 28 NY2d 439; People v Drayton, 39 NY2d 580; Urowsky v Board of Regents of Univ. of State of N. Y., 38 NY2d 364.)
    
      Henry R. Kaufman, Roy Gainsburg, Arthur N. Eisenberg and Steven R. Shapiro for Association of American Publishers, Inc., and others, amici curiae.
    
    I. This court should hold that section 263.15 of the Penal Law violates section 8 of article I of the New York State Constitution. (Chaplin-
      
      sky v New Hampshire, 315 US 568; People v Elwell, 50 NY2d 231; Cooper v Morin, 49 NY2d 69, cert den sub nom. Lombard v Cooper, 446 US 984; People ex rel. Donohoe v Montayne, 35 NY2d 221; Bellanca v New York State Liq. Auth., 54 NY2d 228; Chapadeau v Utica Observer-Dispatch, 38 NY2d 196; Matter of Koffler, 51 NY2d 140, 450 US 1026; Schad v Mount Ephraim, 452 US 61; First Nat. Bank of Boston v Bellotti, 435 US 765.) II. Alternatively, section 263.15 of the Penal Law should be construed and limited so as to reach only materials lacking serious literary, artistic, educational, scientific, medical or other similar value. (Miller v California, 413 US 15.)
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The United States Supreme Court has remanded this case for our reconsideration. That court held, for the first time, that a State is not prohibited under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution from proscribing certain nonobscene sexual depictions of children. The Supreme Court has also indicated that such a law may be upheld unless it reaches impermissible applications (New York v Ferber, 458 US_, 102 S Ct 3348, 3362). The only question remaining in this case is whether the defendant’s rights under this State’s Constitution were violated.

The protection afforded by the State constitutional right of free expression (NY Const, art I, § 8) is as broad as that provided by the First Amendment and, as the Supreme Court has noted, may in fact provide greater protection (PruneYard Shopping Center v Robins, 447 US 74). However, the type of performance prohibited by the statute, which was the subject of this prosecution, is not entitled to that greater protection.

Thus we conclude that the statute (Penal Law, § 263.15), as applied to this case does not violate the right of freedom of expression guaranteed by the State Constitution. We decline the invitation of the appellant and the amici to address or to anticipate questions as to the constitutionality of the statute as applied to other factual situations.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Meyer, J.

(concurring). While I agree that the statute as applied to the instant case does not violate the State Constitution, I would as a matter of State constitutional law recognize an affirmative defense for literary, scientific, educational, governmental or other similar justification, paralleling that now set forth in subdivision 1 of section 235.15 of the Penal Law. Each of the four Supreme Court opinions warns that the statute will have some unconstitutional applications (New York v Ferber, 458 US , —, —, _, _, 102 S Ct 3348, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3366, 3367). In my view, without such a defense, the chilling effect of section 263.15 of the Penal Law upon serious depictions which do not actually threaten the harms addressed by that statute will cause greater harm to this State’s interest in free expression than is constitutionally permissible.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Meyer concurs in a separate opinion in which Judge Fuchsberg also concurs.

Upon reargument, following remand by the United States Supreme Court, order affirmed.  