2015 ORS 163.684¹
Encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree

(1) A person commits the crime of encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree if the person:

(a)(A) Knowingly develops, duplicates, publishes, prints, disseminates, exchanges, displays, finances, attempts to finance or sells a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child or knowingly possesses, accesses or views such a visual recording with the intent to develop, duplicate, publish, print, disseminate, exchange, display or sell it; or

(B) Knowingly brings into this state, or causes to be brought or sent into this state, for sale or distribution, a visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involving a child; and

(b) Knows or is aware of and consciously disregards the fact that creation of the visual recording of sexually explicit conduct involved child abuse.

(2) Encouraging child sexual abuse in the first degree is a Class B felony. [1995 c.768 §2; 2011 c.515 §3]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 163.672)

Prohibi­tion does not violate free speech rights because it is di­rected to eliminating incentive for ac­tions harmful to children and not to communicative substance of ma­te­ri­al. State v. Ready, 148 Or App 149, 939 P2d 117 (1997), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Fleming/Heckathorne, 159 Or App 565, 979 P2d 771 (1999), Sup Ct review denied

In General

Statute is di­rected at preventing harm to children, not at controlling content of speech. State v. Dimock, 174 Or App 500, 27 P3d 1048 (2001), Sup Ct review denied; State v. Betnar, 214 Or App 416, 166 P3d 554 (2007)

"Other visual recording" is limited to depic­tions of real children and real abuse, not virtual or invented images. State v. Dimock, 174 Or App 500, 27 P3d 1048 (2001), Sup Ct review denied

Intent to print matter does not require intent to exhibit printed matter to third party. State v. Bray, 197 Or App 12, 104 P3d 631 (2005), aff'd 342 Or 711, 160 P3d 983 (2007)

"Display" means to show child por­nog­ra­phy publicly or to other individuals. State v. Bray, 342 Or 711, 160 P3d 983 (2007)

"Duplicates" includes downloaded videos from peer-to-peer network. State v. Urbina, 249 Or App 267, 278 P3d 33 (2012), Sup Ct review denied

Victim of encouraging child sexual abuse in first de­gree is child involved in visual recording, and each act of duplicating visual recording constitutes separate crime against victim. State v. Reeves, 250 Or App 294, 280 P3d 994 (2012), Sup Ct review denied

"Duplicates" includes individually downloaded images. State v. Pugh, 255 Or App 357, 297 P3d 27 (2013), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 163

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 427-637 (1972)

  • Ryan Scott, Dec 5, 2012
    “There have been some great merger develop­ments in the past five years. And there are a few open ques­tions left. . . . [T]his is the big one: since merger can be defeated by a demonstra­tion of separate victims, what about those crimes (ID Theft, ECSA) where sometimes the victim is a real per­son and sometimes it's the state?”

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 163—Offenses Against Persons, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors163.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 163, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano163.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.