ORS 167.085¹
Defenses in prosecutions under ORS 167.075 and 167.080

In any prosecution under ORS 167.075 (Exhibiting an obscene performance to a minor) and 167.080 (Displaying obscene materials to minors), it is an affirmative defense for the defendant to prove:

(1) That the defendant was in a parental or guardianship relationship with the minor;

(2) That the defendant was a bona fide school, museum or public library, or was acting in the course of employment as an employee of such organization or of a retail outlet affiliated with and serving the educational purpose of such organization;

(3) That the defendant was charged with furnishing, showing, exhibiting or displaying an item, those portions of which might otherwise be contraband forming merely an incidental part of an otherwise nonoffending whole, and serving some purpose therein other than titillation; or

(4) That the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the person involved was not a minor. [1971 c.743 §260; 1993 c.18 §27; 2001 c.607 §1]

Notes of Decisions

State has the burden of proving ele­ments of obscenity beyond a reasonable doubt. Film Follies v. Haas, 22 Or App 365, 539 P2d 669 (1975)

Defense available for certain instances of “showing, exhibi­tion or display” of obscene ma­te­ri­als to mi­nors is insufficient to prevent prohibitory statute ([former] ORS 167.065) from being overbroad because de­fense does not reach all protected ac­tions constituting “furnishing” of obscene ma­te­ri­als under [former] ORS 167.065. State v. Maynard, 168 Or App 118, 5 P3d 1142 (2000), Sup Ct review denied

Law Review Cita­tions

55 OLR 383-391 (1976)

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 (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2019, Chapter 167, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano167.­html (2019) (last ac­cessed May 16, 2020).
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. Currency Information