Undoubtedly, R.C. 2905.05(A) has an admirable purpose, which is “to prevent child abductions or the commission of lewd acts with children.” … But a statute that defines criminal conduct should not include what is constitutionally protected activity.

Even though the state has a legitimate and compelling interest in protecting children from abduction and lewd acts, a statute intended to promote legitimate goals that can be regularly and improperly applied to prohibit protected expression and activity is unconstitutionally overbroad. R.C. 2905.05(A) is such a statute…. The statute fails to require that the prohibited solicitation, coaxing, enticing, or luring occur with the intent to commit any unlawful act….

With respect to those who are not specifically exempted …, the statute prohibits anyone from asking any child to accompany the person in any manner and for any reason. The statute’s broad language can support criminal charges against a person in many innocent scenarios.

Under the statute, each of the following scenarios could result in a criminal charge: a primary-school coach offering to drive a team member home to retrieve a forgotten piece of practice equipment; a parent at a community facility offering to drive another’s child home so she does not have to walk; a senior citizen offering a 13–year–old neighborhood child money to help with household chores; a 14–year–old asking his 12–year–old friend to go for a bike ride….

The state argues that R.C. 2905.05(A) is not overbroad, because the term “solicit” should be narrowly construed since the other verbs used — “entice,” “coax,” “lure” — all imply the use of artifice, deceit, and/or promises to induce compliance. The state asserts that in the context of R.C. 2905.05(A), the meaning of “solicit” should be narrowed by employing the canon of construction … [counseling] that a word is given a more precise meaning by the neighboring words with which it is associated….

[But e]ven if we were to employ a more narrow definition of “solicit,” R.C. 2905.05(A) would still criminalize a substantial amount of activity protected by the First Amendment. The statute forbids anyone other than the legal custodian of a child, those listed in R.C. 2905.05(A)(2), or those who have the legal custodian’s express permission to solicit a child under the age of 14 to accompany the person “in any manner” for any purpose.

The motivation for the solicitation is irrelevant. There is no requirement that the offender be aggressive toward the victim. One need not have intent to commit a crime. Short of rewriting R.C. 2905.05(A), which is the province of the legislature rather than the court, we cannot construe the statute in such a way as to find it constitutional….

As an alternative to narrowly construing the word “solicit,” the state argues that the court could sever the word from the statute and thereby save the statute from being overbroad…. [But e]ven if the word “solicit” were severed, the remaining language — that no person may “coax, entice, or lure any child … in any manner” — still encompasses a wide range of innocent and protected conduct. An elderly person offering a child under 14 years old money to come with her to help with chores is more than merely asking, and this activity would arguably constitute coaxing, enticing, or luring….