2015 ORS 167.075¹
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]

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)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 167—Offenses Against General Welfare and Animals, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors167.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 167, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano167.­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.