Peter Paul Aman was convicted for violation of OCGA 16-12-100 (b) (8), which provides: It is unlawful for any person knowingly to possess or control any material which depicts a minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct. (b) In Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U. S. ---- (110 SC 1691, 109 LE2d 98) (1990), the United States Supreme Court stated: [W]e . . . find this case distinct from Stanley because the interests underlying child pornography prohibitions far exceed the interests justifying the Georgia law at issue in Stanley. . . . "It is evident beyond the need for elaboration that a State's interest in 'safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor' is 'compelling.' . . . The legislative judgment, as well as the judgment found in relevant literature, is that the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials is harmful to the psychological, emotional, and mental health of the child. That judgment, we think, easily passes muster under the First Amendment." [Cit.] It is also surely reasonable for the State to conclude that it will decrease the production of child pornography if it penalizes those who possess and view the product, thereby decreasing demand. [Id. 109 LE2d at 108, 109.] 12. (a) One of the stated purposes of the Georgia statute is to "prohibit sexual exploitation of children" (Ga. L. 1978, p. 2193), which is consistent with the rationale of Osborne. Hence, the statutory term "depict a minor" must be understood as limited to any photographic representation that was made of a human being who at that time was a minor and was "engaged in any sexually explicit conduct," as defined by the statute. (b) The term "depict a minor" being construed narrowly, the statute is not unconstitutional. Compare Harris v. Entertainment Systems, Inc., 259 Ga. 701 (1) (386 SE2d 140) (1989). 3. The enactment of a state statute affecting an area of the law that is not addressed by the federal statute concerning child pornography law (18 USCS 2251) does not violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. United States Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. 2 See Exxon Corp. v. Ga. Assn. of Petroleum Retailers, 484 FSupp. 1008 (N.D. Ga. 1979), aff'd, 644 F2d 1030 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 932 (102 SC 430, 70 LE2d 239) (1981), which held: The preemption doctrine [of the Supremacy Clause] may apply: (1) where there is direct conflict between state and federal regulation; (2) where state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," [cit.], or (3) where Congress has "occupied the field" in a given area so as to oust all state regulation. . . . [Id. 484 FSupp. at 1017.] HUNT, Justice, concurring. I agree with the majority that to rectify the statute's facially unconstitutional overbreadth, we must construe it so that the depiction of a minor be limited to a photographic representation of a "minor engaged in any sexually explicit conduct." In Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U. S. ---- (110 SC 1691, 1696, 109 LE2d 98) (1990), the United States Supreme Court upheld Ohio's law banning the possession of child pornography, noting the state's compelling interest in " 'safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor.' " This interest is served by banning the possession of child pornography that is based on the use of a live child model. It is not served by, nor is there a legitimate basis for, legislation prohibiting other clearly constitutionally protected materials which "depict" a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined in OCGA 16-12-100 (4). 3 Aman's conviction, based on his possession of pornographic videotapes of children engaged in sexually explicit conduct and magazines containing photographs of children engaged in such conduct, is properly affirmed. I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Smith joins in this concurrence. | 
