Wash. Rev. Code » Title 9 · Chapter 9.68
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68.130 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful display of sexually explicit material if he or she knowingly exhibits such material on a viewing screen so that the sexually explicit material is easily visible from a public thoroughfare, park or playground or from one or more family dwelling units.
(2) "Sexually explicit material" as that term is used in this section means any pictorial material displaying direct physical stimulation of unclothed genitals, masturbation, sodomy (i.e. bestiality or oral or anal intercourse), flagellation or torture in the context of a sexual relationship, or emphasizing the depiction of adult human genitals: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That works of art or of anthropological significance shall not be deemed to be within the foregoing definition.
(3) Any person who violates subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
[ 2011 c 336 s 322; 1975 1st ex.s. c 156 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Hai Minh Nguyen, 425 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hai Minh Nguyen, 425 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 4× “The trial court also imposed several community custody conditions, including special condition 11: Do not possess, use, access or view any sexually explicit material as defined by RCW 9.68.130 or erotic materials as defined by RCW 9.”
State v. Bahl, 193 P.3d 678 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “The majority correctly notes "sexually explicit" is statutorily defined under RCW 9.68.130 (making unlawful to display sexually explicit material on a viewing screen that is "easily visible from a public thoroughfare, park or playground or from one or more family dwelling…”
State v. Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d 739 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 3× “The majority correctly notes “sexually explicit” is statutorily defined under RCW 9.68.130 (making unlawful to display sexually explicit material on a viewing screen that is “easily visible from a public thoroughfare, park or playground or from one or more family dwelling…”
State v. Johnson, 487 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2021). “Like the conditions approved in Bahl and Nguyen, this provision gives Johnson fair warning of what is forbidden to him— accessing the Internet without the use of approved filters.”
State of Washington v. Kevin Arther Peters, 455 P.3d 141 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The fact that the term “sexually explicit” is defined in RCW 9.68.130(1) was found by the court to bolster its conclusion that, in the context used, the term was not unconstitutionally vague.”
In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell, 533 P.3d 875 (Wash. 2023). “In Nguyen, we held that a condition prohibiting “‘sexually explicit material as defined by RCW 9.68.130’” was not unconstitutionally vague because “persons of ordinary intelligence can discern ‘sexually explicit material’ from works of art and anthropological significance,”…”
State v. J.H.-M., 566 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2025). · cites it 7× “The condition states: Do not possess, use, access or view any sexually explicit material as defined by RCW 9.68.130 or erotic materials as defined by RCW 9.”
City of Spokane v. Portch, 596 P.2d 1044 (Wash. 1979). “030 prohibits the sale, loan or distribution of articles or drugs for causing unlawful abortion or providing material to assist in obtaining such article or drugs.”
State Of Washington v. Ricardo Liard Bruno (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 9× “We agree in part, and remand with instructions to(1)strike community custody condition 7 as not crime-related, (2) conduct additional fact-finding in support of or strike the language of community custody condition 11 related to sexually explicit material as defined by RCW…”
State Of Washington, V. J.h-m, 538 P.3d 644 (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “Do not possess, use, access or view any sexually explicit material as defined by RCW 9.68.130 or erotic materials as defined by RCW 9.”
Pers. Restraint Petition of Casey Dullea Peppin (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “The parties agree that a prohibition on possessing pornography is unconstitutional but disagree about whether the term “sexually explicit 18 No.”
State Of Washington v. Brian T. Stark (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 3× “The condition in that case required the offender not to "possess, use, access or view any sexually explicit material as defined by RCW 9.68.130." Id. at 3. The referenced statute defines sexually explicit material as: [A]ny pictorial material displaying direct physical…”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68.130(1) — 4 cases
State v. Bahl, 193 P.3d 678 (Wash. 2008). “The majority correctly notes "sexually explicit" is statutorily defined under RCW 9.68.130 (making unlawful to display sexually explicit material on a viewing screen that is "easily visible from a public thoroughfare, park or playground or from one or more family dwelling…”
State v. Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d 739 (Wash. 2008). “The majority correctly notes “sexually explicit” is statutorily defined under RCW 9.68.130 (making unlawful to display sexually explicit material on a viewing screen that is “easily visible from a public thoroughfare, park or playground or from one or more family dwelling…”
State of Washington v. Kevin Arther Peters, 455 P.3d 141 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The fact that the term “sexually explicit” is defined in RCW 9.68.130(1) was found by the court to bolster its conclusion that, in the context used, the term was not unconstitutionally vague.”
State Of Washington, V Earl Owen Rosete De Dios (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 9.68.130(2) — 18 cases
State v. Hai Minh Nguyen, 425 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2018). “The trial court also imposed several community custody conditions, including special condition 11: Do not possess, use, access or view any sexually explicit material as defined by RCW 9.68.130 or erotic materials as defined by RCW 9.”
State v. Bahl, 193 P.3d 678 (Wash. 2008). “The majority correctly notes "sexually explicit" is statutorily defined under RCW 9.68.130 (making unlawful to display sexually explicit material on a viewing screen that is "easily visible from a public thoroughfare, park or playground or from one or more family dwelling…”
State v. Bahl, 164 Wash. 2d 739 (Wash. 2008). “The majority correctly notes “sexually explicit” is statutorily defined under RCW 9.68.130 (making unlawful to display sexually explicit material on a viewing screen that is “easily visible from a public thoroughfare, park or playground or from one or more family dwelling…”
State v. Johnson, 487 P.3d 893 (Wash. 2021). “Like the conditions approved in Bahl and Nguyen, this provision gives Johnson fair warning of what is forbidden to him— accessing the Internet without the use of approved filters.”
State v. J.H.-M., 566 P.3d 847 (Wash. 2025). “The condition states: Do not possess, use, access or view any sexually explicit material as defined by RCW 9.68.130 or erotic materials as defined by RCW 9.”
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.