Rep. Andy Olson: Lawsuit threatens law over children and pornography

Press Release From Rep. Andy Olson’s office:Rep. Olson Chief-Sponsored Bipartisan Bill in 2007

SALEM — Rep. Andy Olson (R-Albany) today criticized a lawsuit aimed at overturning 2007 legislation that made it a crime to furnish sexually-explicit material to children. Planned Parenthood, the ACLU and a Portland bookstore announced they’re challenging House Bill 2843, a bipartisan bill that targets sexual predators. The bill passed 57-2 in the House and 28-1 in the Senate.

“HB 2843 makes it a crime to intentionally provide sexually explicit pornography to children under 13,” said Rep. Olson, a retired Oregon State Police member. “This law was carefully written to respect Oregonians’ First Amendment rights. It is clearly targeted at individuals who use pornography to lure and harm Oregon’s kids.”

HB 2843 is the product of a bipartisan, bicameral coalition to address problems related to pornography and children, and the luring of minors for sexual conduct and activity. The law includes several affirmative defenses, including instances where providing the material serves an educational purpose.

“This lawsuit is a misguided attempt to reverse gains the Legislature has made in protecting children,” Rep. Olson said. “No adult, and no bookstore, should be in the business of providing kids with the kind of content that is specifically listed in this law.”


Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 1 Comment |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Rupert in Springfield

    Wow, I love a challenge, and for me, nothing is more of a challenge than finding something I agree with the ACLU on.

    This case surely is it. This is simply the best example of a poorly written law anyone could hope to find.

    Here is a link to the law –

    The assertions that this law is a product of bipartisan effort are all well and good, however that does nothing to establish the fact that this law looks like it was written by a two year old.

    Here are some examples:

    I run a bookstore, it is a sole proprietorship, thus I am not an employee. A child walks in, and starts going through books in the photography section. The child sees various works by Robert Mapplethorpe, Helmut Newton along with drawings by Tom of Finland, many consider these pornography all can be found in most Barns and Nobles, all have caused offense on a noted and national level as being titillating and pornographic. I am now guilty under this law. I knew the books were there and I knew any child coming in to the store would have access to them.

    Same situation, however its not a book store, it is a Rupert’s American Photography museum showing the photographs in large blow ups on the wall. I am still guilty as I am not an employee.

    I decide to incorporate my museum, I own the corporation and am its sole employee. I am not guilty because now I am an employee and it is a museum, not a book store.

    In my incorporated museum, large blow ups of the photographs are on the wall. I am an employee. I am not guilty, the child has seen the pictures, but I’m an employee of a museum. My wife is guilty though in her separate business, a gift shop in the museum, that is selling a book of the pictures and the child sees the book there, she is neither an employee, nor working in a museum, thus her guilt.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)