O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
The General Assembly finds that the sale, loan, and exhibition of harmful materials to minors has become a matter of increasingly grave concern to the people of this state. The elimination of such sales, loans, and exhibition and the consequent protection of minors from harmful materials are in the best interest of the morals and general welfare of the citizens of this state in general and of minors in this state in particular. The accomplishment of these ends can best be achieved by providing public prosecutors with an effective power to commence criminal proceedings against persons who engage in the sale, loan, or exhibition of harmful materials to minors.
History
Code 1981, § 16-12-101, enacted by Ga. L. 1983, p. 1437, § 2.
Annotations
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Constitutionality. - Decision in American Booksellers Ass’n v. Webb, 643 F. Supp. 1546 (N.D. Ga. 1986), invalidating the display provision of O.C.G.A. Pt. 3, Ch. 12, T. 16 does not prohibit the state from prosecuting a
defendant for violating the exhibition, distribution, and definition components of that part. Hunter v. State, 257 Ga. 571, 361 S.E.2d 787, 1987 Ga. LEXIS 1009 (1987).
Notes of Decisions
State v. Cafe Erotica, Inc., 500 S.E.2d 574 (Ga. 1998).
· cites it 8× “exhibition of harmful materials to minors" (OCGA § 16-12-101); that the challenged legislation made it unlawful for a person knowingly to allow a person under 21 to enter premises where certain forms of constitutionally-protected exhibitions or activity were taking place; and…”
Stroeining v. State, 486 S.E.2d 670 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 6× “Under OCGA § 16-12-101 et seq., the legislature attempts to protect minors from harmful materials and to deter those whose intent it is to sell, exhibit, or disseminate these harmful materials to minors for profit.”
Hollis v. State, 450 S.E.2d 247 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Therefore, whether a defense expert personally considers the materials to be harmful (and, by logical extension, whether the public generally might be misinformed regarding the impact of exhibiting sexually graphic materials to minors) is irrelevant under OCGA § 16-12-101 et…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.