Oregon ACLU challenges state law prohibiting distribution of “sexually explicit” materials to minors
The AP reports on KTVZ.com: “The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon has joined booksellers and librarians to challenge a state law restricting the sale of sex education material to children.” Yet, the statute in question is not specifically directed toward the sale of sex education material.
Click here to view the ACLU press release, complaint, and memo in support of preliminary injunction in Powell’s Books, Inc. v. Myers.
The suit challenges this Oregon statute:
167.054 Furnishing sexually explicit material to a child. (1) A person commits the crime of furnishing sexually explicit material to a child if the person intentionally furnishes a child, or intentionally permits a child to view, sexually explicit material and the person knows that the material is sexually explicit material.
(2) A person is not liable to prosecution for violating subsection (1) of this section if:
(a) The person is an employee of a bona fide museum, school, law enforcement agency, medical treatment provider or public library, acting within the scope of regular employment; or
(b) The person furnishes, or permits the viewing of, material the sexually explicit portions of which form merely an incidental part of an otherwise nonoffending whole and serve some purpose other than titillation.
(3) In a prosecution under subsection (1) of this section, it is an affirmative defense:
(a) That the sexually explicit material was furnished, or the viewing was permitted, solely for the purpose of sex education, art education or psychological treatment and was furnished or permitted by the child’s parent or legal guardian, by an educator or treatment provider or by another person acting on behalf of the parent, legal guardian, educator or treatment provider;
(b) That the defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the person to whom the sexually explicit material was furnished, or who was permitted to view the material, was not a child; or
(c) That the defendant was less than three years older than the child at the time of the alleged offense.
(4) In a prosecution under subsection (1) of this section, it is not a defense that the person to whom the sexually explicit material was furnished or who was permitted to view the material was not a child but was a law enforcement officer posing as a child.
(5) Furnishing sexually explicit material to a child is a Class A misdemeanor. [2007 c.869 §2]