Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-201 (2026)

Obscenity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

TITLE 45. CRIMES

CHAPTER 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Part 2. Offensive, Indecent, and Inhumane Conduct

Obscenity

45-8-201. Obscenity. (1) A person commits the offense of obscenity when, with knowledge of the obscene nature of the material, the person purposely or knowingly:

(a) sells, delivers, or provides or offers or agrees to sell, deliver, or provide any obscene writing, picture, record, or other representation or embodiment of the obscene to anyone under 18 years of age or a person, including a law enforcement officer using an undercover or fictitious identity, whom the offender believes to be under 18 years of age;

(b) presents or directs an obscene play, dance, or other performance, or participates in that portion of the performance that makes it obscene, to anyone under 18 years of age;

(c) publishes, exhibits, or otherwise makes available anything obscene to anyone under 18 years of age;

(d) performs an obscene act or otherwise presents an obscene exhibition of the person's body to anyone under 18 years of age;

(e) creates, buys, procures, or possesses obscene matter or material with the purpose to disseminate it to anyone under 18 years of age or a person, including a law enforcement officer using an undercover or fictitious identity, whom the offender believes to be under 18 years of age; or

(f) advertises or otherwise promotes the sale of obscene material or materials represented or held out by the person to be obscene.

(2) A thing is obscene if:

(a) (i) it is a representation or description of perverted ultimate sexual acts, actual or simulated;

(ii) it is a patently offensive representation or description of normal ultimate sexual acts, actual or simulated; or

(iii) it is a patently offensive representation or description of masturbation, excretory functions, or lewd exhibition of the genitals; and

(b) taken as a whole the material:

(i) applying contemporary community standards, appeals to the prurient interest in sex;

(ii) portrays conduct described in subsection (2)(a)(i), (2)(a)(ii), or (2)(a)(iii) in a patently offensive way; and

(iii) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(3) In any prosecution for an offense under this section, evidence is admissible to show:

(a) the predominant appeal of the material and what effect, if any, it would probably have on the behavior of people;

(b) the artistic, literary, scientific, educational, or other merits of the material;

(c) the degree of public acceptance of the material in the community;

(d) the appeal to prurient interest or absence of that appeal in advertising or other promotion of the material; or

(e) the purpose of the author, creator, publisher, or disseminator.

(4) A person convicted of obscenity shall be fined at least $500 but not more than $1,000 or be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not to exceed 6 months, or both.

(5) Cities, towns, counties, or school districts may adopt ordinances, resolutions, or policies that are more restrictive as to obscenity than the provisions of this section.

History: En. 94-8-110 by Sec. 1, Ch. 513, L. 1973; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 407, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 94-8-110; amd. Sec. 1, I.M. 79, app. Nov. 7, 1978; amd. Sec. 5, Ch. 571, L. 1989; amd. Sec. 1702, Ch. 56, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 449, L. 2023; amd. Sec. 6, Ch. 102, L. 2025.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2023 · leading case: State v. Price, 622 P.2d 160 (Mont. 1980).
State v. Price, 622 P.2d 160 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 21× “In attacking the misdemeanor obscenity conviction, defendant contends that the State failed to comply with section 45-8-201, MCA, in that the State failed to admit evidence at trial which would give the trial court a basis upon which to determine contemporary community standards…”
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). · cites it 2× “1981-1982); Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-201 (1981); N. M. Stat.”
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988). · cites it 2× “Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-201 (1987) Neb. Neb.”
State v. Dugan, 2013 MT 38 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 4× “¶49 We hold that the District Court erred in deeming Dugan’s speech unprotected “fighting words.”
The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen (D. Mont. 2023). · cites it 6× “Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-201 (1). This statute employs a definition of “obscene” that incorporates the Miller requirements.”
City of Great Falls v. M.K. Enter., Inc., 732 P.2d 413 (Mont. 1987). · cites it 6× “88 per year to police the booths to insure adequate enforcement of the State child pornography law, Section 45-5-625, MCA; $8,064 per year to police the booths to insure adequate enforcement of the State deviate sexual conduct law, Section 45-5-505, MCA; and $2,688 per year to…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-201(2) — 2 cases
State v. Dugan, 2013 MT 38 (Mont. 2013). “¶49 We hold that the District Court erred in deeming Dugan’s speech unprotected “fighting words.”
The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen (D. Mont. 2023). “Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-201 (1). This statute employs a definition of “obscene” that incorporates the Miller requirements.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-201(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Price, 622 P.2d 160 (Mont. 1980). “In attacking the misdemeanor obscenity conviction, defendant contends that the State failed to comply with section 45-8-201, MCA, in that the State failed to admit evidence at trial which would give the trial court a basis upon which to determine contemporary community standards…”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 45-8-201(2)(b) — 1 case
State v. Price, 622 P.2d 160 (Mont. 1980). “In attacking the misdemeanor obscenity conviction, defendant contends that the State failed to comply with section 45-8-201, MCA, in that the State failed to admit evidence at trial which would give the trial court a basis upon which to determine contemporary community standards…”
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.