Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 722 / Act 33 of 1978
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.676 (2026)

Persons excepted from MCL 722.675.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

DISSEMINATING, EXHIBITING, OR DISPLAYING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATTER TO MINORS


Act 33 of 1978


722.676 Persons excepted from MCL 722.675.

Sec. 6.

    Section 5 does not apply to the dissemination of sexually explicit matter to a minor by any of the following:

    (a) A parent or guardian who disseminates sexually explicit matter to his or her child or ward unless the dissemination is for the sexual gratification of the parent or guardian.

    (b) A teacher or administrator at a public or private elementary or secondary school that complies with the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 to 380.1852, and who disseminates sexually explicit matter to a student as part of a school program permitted by law.

    (c) A licensed physician or licensed psychologist who disseminates sexually explicit matter in the treatment of a patient.

    (d) A librarian employed by a library of a public or private elementary or secondary school that complies with the revised school code, 1976 PA 451, MCL 380.1 to 380.1852, or employed by a public library, who disseminates sexually explicit matter in the course of that person's employment.

    (e) Any public or private college or university or any other person who disseminates sexually explicit matter for a legitimate medical, scientific, governmental, or judicial purpose.

    (f) A person who disseminates sexually explicit matter that is a public document, publication, record, or other material issued by a state, local, or federal official, department, board, commission, agency, or other governmental entity, or an accurate republication of such a public document, publication, record, or other material.

History: 1978, Act 33, Eff. June 1, 1978 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 33, Eff. Aug. 1, 1999 ;-- Am. 2003, Act 192, Eff. Jan. 1, 2004 ;-- Am. 2005, Act 245, Eff. Feb. 1, 2006

Constitutionality Notes:

    Act 33 of 1999 violates the First Amendment and the Dormant Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. Defendants are permanently restrained and enjoined from enforcing any provisions of 1999 PA 33. Cyberspace Communications, Inc v Engler, 142 F Supp 2d 827 (ED Mich, 2001).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Cheeseman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc, 310 N.W.2d 408 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cheeseman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc, 310 N.W.2d 408 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “15 MCL 722.676(a); MSA 25.254(6)(a). 16 We would guess the parents and guardians of these plaintiffs are, at this point in time, a distinct minority.”
400 E. Baltimore Street, Inc. v. State, 431 A.2d 682 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1981). “272, § 29 ; Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.676 ; Minn. Stat. § 617.”
Parents & Taxpayers Against Pornography v. Rockford Pub Schs Dist (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “675 because they were not “disseminating” sexually explicit materials by simply operating a library, as provided in MCL 722.676(d). Moreover, the trial court found that defendants did not violate the RSC because the books were not part of a sex education curriculum.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.676(a) — 1 case
Cheeseman v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc, 310 N.W.2d 408 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). “15 MCL 722.676(a); MSA 25.254(6)(a). 16 We would guess the parents and guardians of these plaintiffs are, at this point in time, a distinct minority.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.676(d) — 1 case
Parents & Taxpayers Against Pornography v. Rockford Pub Schs Dist (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “675 because they were not “disseminating” sexually explicit materials by simply operating a library, as provided in MCL 722.676(d). Moreover, the trial court found that defendants did not violate the RSC because the books were not part of a sex education curriculum.”
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.