Offenses Against General Welfare and Animals

ORS 167.075
Exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor


Exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor.

(1)

A person commits the crime of exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor if the minor is unaccompanied by the parent or lawful guardian of the minor, and for a monetary consideration or other valuable commodity or service, the person knowingly or recklessly:

(a)

Exhibits an obscene performance to the minor; or

(b)

Sells an admission ticket or other means to gain entrance to an obscene performance to the minor; or

(c)

Permits the admission of the minor to premises whereon there is exhibited an obscene performance.

(2)

No employee is liable to prosecution under this section or under any city or home-rule county ordinance for exhibiting or possessing with intent to exhibit any obscene motion picture provided the employee is acting within the scope of regular employment at a showing open to the public.

(3)

As used in this section, “employee” means any person regularly employed by the owner or operator of a motion picture theater if the person has no financial interest other than salary or wages in the ownership or operation of the motion picture theater, no financial interest in or control over the selection of the motion pictures shown in the theater, and is working within the motion picture theater where the person is regularly employed, but does not include a manager of the motion picture theater.

(4)

Exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor is a Class A misdemeanor. Notwithstanding ORS 161.635 (Fines for misdemeanors) and 161.655 (Fines for corporations), a person convicted under this section may be sentenced to pay a fine, fixed by the court, not exceeding $10,000. [1971 c.743 §258]
§§ 167.060 to 167.100

Notes of Decisions

Prohibitions against obscene live performance or distribution of obscene material do not violate federal or state constitutional right of free speech. Film Follies v. Haas, 22 Or App 365, 539 P2d 669 (1975)

In a federal obscenity prosecution, it was a question for the trial court whether the people of Oregon approved of conduct then permitted by these sections, or whether community standards were at variance with these sections. U.S. v. Danley, 523 F2d 369 (1975)

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 428, 429, 523, 537-552, 556 (1972)

Chapter 167

Atty. Gen. Opinions

Exemption of nuisance laws from constitutional requirement for payments based on government regulations restricting use of property, (2001) Vol 49, p 284

Law Review Citations

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021