Va. Code » Title 18.2. Crimes and Offenses Generally » Chapter 8. Crimes Involving Morals and Decency » Article 5. Obscenity and Related Offenses
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-372 (2026)

"Obscene" defined

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The word "obscene" where it appears in this article shall mean that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof or sadomasochistic abuse, and which goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters and which, taken as a whole, does not have serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Code 1950, § 18.1-227; 1960, c. 233; 1975, cc. 14, 15.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Barson v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 292 (Va. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barson v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 292 (Va. 2012). · cites it 24× “To be more precise, the question before us is whether the statutory definition of "obscene" found in Code § 18.2-372 should apply or whether the dictionary's definition utilized by the Court of Appeals should apply.”
Barson v. Commonwealth, 711 S.E.2d 220 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 44× “2-427 the definition of "obscene" contained in Code § 18.2-372, which specifically provides, The word "obscene" where it appears in this article shall mean that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is,…”
Hart v. Commonwealth, 441 S.E.2d 706 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 12× “As defined in relevant part in Code § 18.2-372, "obscene" means that which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, [or] sexual excitement .”
Allman v. Commonwealth, 596 S.E.2d 531 (Va. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “2—defines the word, “obscene,” as that [1] which, considered as a whole, has as its dominant theme or purpose an appeal to the prurient interest in sex, that is, a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, excretory functions or products thereof…”
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). · cites it 2× “§ 76-10-1203 (1) (1978); Va. Code § 18.2-372 (1982); 1982 Wash. Laws.”
Lofgren v. Commonwealth, 684 S.E.2d 223 (Va. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 14× “2-427, this Court has adopted the definition of obscenity found in Code § 18.2-372. See Allman v. Commonwealth, 43 Va.”
Rives v. Com., 726 S.E.2d 248 (Va. 2012). · cites it 4× “In the case before us, the parties stipulated that "the only issue presented at trial was a legal one, namely whether or not the language used by [John Lombe] Rives was both obscene and harassing, such that it would violate" Code § 18.2-372. Based on that stipulation, the trial…”
Simon v. Commonwealth, 708 S.E.2d 245 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Code § 18.2-372. 4 Comparing these two definitions, we conclude that although every exposure made with lascivious intent in violation of Code § 18.”
Richard Turner Moter v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 737 S.E.2d 538 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 8× “To be truly obscene, Barson added, the communication must also violate another statute, Code § 18.2-372, Virginia’s codification of the First Amendment’s pornography exception recognized in Miller v.”
Holden v. Commonwealth, 494 S.E.2d 892 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “See Code § 18.2-372 (defining “obscene”). Good behavior is not limited to an avoidance of criminal activity.”
United States v. Pryba, 674 F. Supp. 1504 (E.D. Va. 1987). · cites it 2× “The victim, defendants contend, will be protected speech at the margins, presumably erotic works that skirt the boundary but do not cross over into the realm of obscenity.”
Copeland v. Commonwealth, 525 S.E.2d 9 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Copeland contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for indecent exposure, because it failed to prove that his exposure went “substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
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.