We won one!
Oct. 9th, 2005 03:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kengr(from a mailing list I'm on)
Many of us in the community are familiar with ORS 167.062 which states that
"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."
In a case that involved the owner and performers at a business in Roseburg who were arrested after two undercover police officers were treated to a "show". The owner was convicted under the statute, appealed and lost, then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Supreme Court found that ORS 167.062 was directed at expression, and was therefore unconstitutional.
From the opinion:
"To conclude: ORS 167.062 is directed by its terms at expression and does not fall under a well-established historical exception that the framers of Article I, section 8, demonstrably did not intend to reach. It is unconstitutional on its face. It follows that defendant's convictions under ORS 167.062 must be reversed. '"
Here is a link to the whole opinion.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S49707.htm
Many of us in the community are familiar with ORS 167.062 which states that
"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."
In a case that involved the owner and performers at a business in Roseburg who were arrested after two undercover police officers were treated to a "show". The owner was convicted under the statute, appealed and lost, then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court. The Oregon Supreme Court found that ORS 167.062 was directed at expression, and was therefore unconstitutional.
From the opinion:
"To conclude: ORS 167.062 is directed by its terms at expression and does not fall under a well-established historical exception that the framers of Article I, section 8, demonstrably did not intend to reach. It is unconstitutional on its face. It follows that defendant's convictions under ORS 167.062 must be reversed. '"
Here is a link to the whole opinion.
http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/S49707.htm
