House Bill 230 creates a new chapter in Title 6 of the Idaho Code establishing a civil cause of action related to certain live sexual performances or exhibitions where minors are likely to be present. The bill requires organizers, hosts, and performers to take reasonable steps to restrict minors’ access when the event involves live persons engaged in sexual conduct and is deemed patently offensive under an adult-community standard as to what is suitable for minors.
If a minor is exposed in violation of the bill, the minor may sue the responsible person or institution and recover $5,000 in statutory damages per violation, along with additional damages for psychological, emotional, economic, and physical harm, plus attorney’s fees and costs. The bill also authorizes the attorney general or county prosecuting attorney to seek injunctive relief against ongoing or threatened violations. It defines key terms such as “host,” “organize,” “minor,” and “sexual conduct,” and includes exceptions and affirmative defenses, including certain parental consent situations for minors 14 and older, age-verification defenses, and a carve-out for school-sponsored athletic, cheer, or dance team performances.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a new private enforcement mechanism and state enforcement authority aimed at live sexually explicit performances, while also setting standards for liability and defenses for venues and event organizers. It does not create a criminal offense in the text provided, but it does expose covered parties to civil damages and injunctions and may affect theaters, clubs, event venues, performers, promoters, and hosts that stage or facilitate such performances. The act is declared an emergency measure and would take effect 30 days after gubernatorial signature.
Overall sentiment appears supportive in the House, as reflected by the 55-10 third-reading vote, suggesting substantial majority backing. The bill’s findings frame it as a child-protection and public-welfare measure grounded in First Amendment and secondary-effects reasoning, indicating the sponsors’ intent to defend it as a narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulation rather than a broad speech restriction.
The main points of contention are likely to center on free speech concerns, the breadth and vagueness of terms such as “sexual conduct” and “patently offensive,” and whether the bill could chill lawful expressive performances or impose liability on venues and hosts. Another likely area of debate is the private right of action with statutory damages, which may be viewed as a strong enforcement tool by supporters but as a potentially expansive litigation mechanism by critics. The parental-consent exception and the school-performance carve-out may also be relevant to discussions about scope and exemptions.
The bill adds a new civil-liability chapter to Title 6 of the Idaho Code governing live performances involving sexual conduct when minors are likely to be present. It creates duties for organizers, hosts, and performers to restrict minors’ access, authorizes minors to sue for statutory and actual damages, and allows state and county prosecutors to seek injunctions. It also establishes affirmative defenses and exemptions, including age-verification and certain parental-consent circumstances, and excludes specified school athletic and dance activities from the definition of sexual conduct.
The available voting history suggests the bill was generally well received in the House, passing third reading 55-10. The bill’s findings and structure indicate strong support among proponents for a child-protection approach and for using civil enforcement to deter sexually explicit live performances in the presence of minors. No committee transcript is available, but the vote margin implies broad majority support with a smaller bloc of opposition.
Likely opposition focuses on First Amendment implications, especially whether the bill regulates protected expressive conduct and whether its standards are sufficiently clear. Critics may also object to the private cause of action, statutory damages, and the potential for lawsuits against venues, hosts, and performers even when minors are accompanied by parents, since the bill limits that defense. Supporters are likely to emphasize child protection, the state’s interest in shielding minors from sexualized performances, and the bill’s narrow exemptions and affirmative defenses.