Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.062 (2026)

Sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct in live show

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      167.062 Sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct in live show. (1) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct in a live public show.

      (2) Violation of subsection (1) of this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

      (3) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly direct, manage, finance or present a live public show in which the participants engage in sadomasochistic abuse or sexual conduct.

      (4) Violation of subsection (3) of this section is a Class C felony.

      (5) As used in ORS 167.002, 167.007 and this section unless the context requires otherwise:

      (a) “Live public show” means a public show in which human beings, animals, or both appear bodily before spectators or customers.

      (b) “Public show” means any entertainment or exhibition advertised or in some other fashion held out to be accessible to the public or member of a club, whether or not an admission or other charge is levied or collected and whether or not minors are admitted or excluded. [1973 c.699 §§2,3; 2007 c.869 §9]

 

      167.065 [1971 c.743 §256; repealed by 2007 c.869 §11]

 

      167.070 [1971 c.743 §257; repealed by 2007 c.869 §11]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1976–2020 · leading case: State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Multnomah Cnty. v. Mehrwein, 462 P.3d 706 (Or. 2020). · cites it 3× “The first was ORS 167.062 (2003), a prohibition on certain “live public sex show[s].”
State v. Gaines, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009). “085(2) (“voluntary act” includes a “bodily movement” performed consciously); ORS 167.062(5)(a) (“Live public show” means a public show in which human beings, animals, or both “appear bodily” before spectators or customers).”
Am. Bush v. City of South Salt Lake, 2006 UT 40 (Utah 2006). “3d 613, 614-15 (2005) (quoting Or.Rev.Stat. § 167.062). Presented with the same argument made in this case by the majority and the concurrence, the court found the statute facially unconstitutional, stating: [T]he words [of the Oregon Constitution] are so clear and sweeping that…”
State v. Yong, 138 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Barrett, 331 Or 27, 32 , 10 P3d 901 (2000), the Supreme Court held that ORS 167.062(1) “requires both that a defendant’s acts violate ‘two or more statutory provisions’ and that each ‘statutory provision’ requires ‘proof of an element that the others do not.”
State v. Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d 613 (Or. 2005). · cites it 63× “In this criminal proceeding, we are asked to decide whether ORS 167.062, which makes it a crime to, among other things, *615 "direct, manage, finance or present" a "live public show" in which the participants engage in "sexual conduct" violates the free expression rights…”
City of Nyssa v. Dufloth, 121 P.3d 639 (Or. 2005). · cites it 4× “Using that analytical framework for analyzing Article I, section 8, cases, the Court of Appeals in Ciancanelli reviewed the line of laws and cases dating back to the seventeenth century dealing with public nudity and public sexual conduct, and concluded that ORS 167.062 falls…”
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 119× “The state charged him with two counts of promoting unlawful sexual conduct in a public show, ORS 167.062, one count of promoting prostitution, ORS 167.”
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 60× “The state charged him with two counts of promoting unlawful sexual conduct in a public show, ORS 167.062, one count of promoting prostitution, ORS 167.”
City of Nyssa v. Dufloth, 57 P.3d 161 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “Ciancanelli involved nude performers who performed acts of public masturbation and public sexual intercourse in violation of ORS 167.062. We said, “[E]ven assuming that the statute restrains expression, we conclude that the restraint does not run afoul of Article I, section 8.”
State v. Maynard, 910 P.2d 1115 (Or. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “060(10); ORS 167.062. We noted that the sweep of the statute would include ballets, operas, musicals and dramas that may contain scenes in which a performer may touch the buttocks, breasts or genitals of another performer "`in an act of apparent sexual stimulation or…”
State v. Henry, 717 P.2d 189 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “House, supra , we found that ORS 167.062, which proscribed "sexual conduct in a live public show," to be overbroad, because the proscription included such works as "Romeo and Juliet" and "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.”
State v. House, 698 P.2d 951 (Or. 1985). · cites it 10× “ORS 167.062 reads in pertinent part: "(1) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in * * * sexual conduct in a live public show.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.062(1) — 4 cases
State v. House, 698 P.2d 951 (Or. 1985). “ORS 167.062 reads in pertinent part: "(1) It is unlawful for any person to knowingly engage in * * * sexual conduct in a live public show.”
State v. House, 681 P.2d 173 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. House, 676 P.2d 892 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Yong, 138 P.3d 37 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “Barrett, 331 Or 27, 32 , 10 P3d 901 (2000), the Supreme Court held that ORS 167.062(1) “requires both that a defendant’s acts violate ‘two or more statutory provisions’ and that each ‘statutory provision’ requires ‘proof of an element that the others do not.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.062(3) — 6 cases
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “The state charged him with two counts of promoting unlawful sexual conduct in a public show, ORS 167.062, one count of promoting prostitution, ORS 167.”
State v. Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d 613 (Or. 2005). “In this criminal proceeding, we are asked to decide whether ORS 167.062, which makes it a crime to, among other things, *615 "direct, manage, finance or present" a "live public show" in which the participants engage in "sexual conduct" violates the free expression rights…”
State v. House, 676 P.2d 892 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
City of Nyssa v. Dufloth, 121 P.3d 639 (Or. 2005). “Using that analytical framework for analyzing Article I, section 8, cases, the Court of Appeals in Ciancanelli reviewed the line of laws and cases dating back to the seventeenth century dealing with public nudity and public sexual conduct, and concluded that ORS 167.062 falls…”
State v. Tidyman, 635 P.2d 1355 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.062(5) — 1 case
Multnomah Cnty. v. Mehrwein, 462 P.3d 706 (Or. 2020). “The first was ORS 167.062 (2003), a prohibition on certain “live public sex show[s].”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.062(5)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Gaines, 206 P.3d 1042 (Or. 2009). “085(2) (“voluntary act” includes a “bodily movement” performed consciously); ORS 167.062(5)(a) (“Live public show” means a public show in which human beings, animals, or both “appear bodily” before spectators or customers).”
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “The state charged him with two counts of promoting unlawful sexual conduct in a public show, ORS 167.062, one count of promoting prostitution, ORS 167.”
State v. Tidyman, 635 P.2d 1355 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “The state charged him with two counts of promoting unlawful sexual conduct in a public show, ORS 167.062, one count of promoting prostitution, ORS 167.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.062(5)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “The state charged him with two counts of promoting unlawful sexual conduct in a public show, ORS 167.062, one count of promoting prostitution, ORS 167.”
State v. Ciancanelli, 121 P.3d 613 (Or. 2005). “In this criminal proceeding, we are asked to decide whether ORS 167.062, which makes it a crime to, among other things, *615 "direct, manage, finance or present" a "live public show" in which the participants engage in "sexual conduct" violates the free expression rights…”
State v. Ciancanelli, 45 P.3d 451 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “The state charged him with two counts of promoting unlawful sexual conduct in a public show, ORS 167.062, one count of promoting prostitution, ORS 167.”
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.