Crimes and punishments; prohibiting lewd acts or obscene material in public place. Effective date.
SB 977 creates a new criminal offense and related civil liability for public displays of “lewd acts” or obscene material. The bill defines “lewd acts” broadly to include sexual behavior imitating sex or sexual acts, groping, indecent exposure of genitalia or sexual paraphernalia, display of replicas of genitalia, sexually touching oneself or another person, and coercing or forcing someone else to engage in or observe sexual behavior. It also incorporates the existing statutory definition of “obscene material.”
The bill prohibits political subdivisions from allowing such displays in public places, including parades, shows, concerts, plays, and other activities where a minor could witness the conduct. It also bars any individual from showing lewd acts or obscene material in a public place where others could witness it. A political subdivision that acts in good faith to comply with the bill would not be liable for violations committed by individuals or groups.
SB 977 further makes it a felony for any person to intentionally display lewd acts or obscene material in front of a minor. In addition to criminal penalties, the bill creates a private cause of action, allowing any person to sue an individual who intentionally commits such acts when a minor is exposed or when another person is unwillingly exposed.
The bill would add Section 1024.6 to Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes and would take effect November 1, 2025. Its practical impact is to expand Oklahoma’s criminal and civil enforcement tools around public sexual conduct and obscene displays, while placing compliance obligations on local governments and event organizers that permit public performances or gatherings.
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, so the overall sentiment is inferred from the bill’s structure and caption rather than from discussion. The measure appears aimed at restricting public sexual expression and protecting minors, which suggests support from proponents of stricter public decency laws. Potential contention likely centers on the breadth of the definitions, the reach into public performances and events, and possible First Amendment or overbreadth concerns, especially for political subdivisions, performers, and event organizers.
SB 977 would create a new section in Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes prohibiting public displays of lewd acts or obscene material and establishing felony liability for intentional exposure of such conduct to a minor. It also authorizes a private civil cause of action for persons exposed unwillingly or for minors exposed to the conduct. Local governments and other political subdivisions would be required to avoid permitting such displays in public places, with a good-faith compliance shield from liability. The bill would therefore expand both criminal enforcement and civil remedies related to public indecency and obscenity, affecting performers, event hosts, municipalities, and others responsible for public gatherings.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no direct record of debate or roll-call sentiment. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a public decency and child-protection bill, which typically draws support from lawmakers favoring restrictions on sexually explicit conduct in public. At the same time, the broad scope of the prohibition suggests it could face criticism from those concerned about free expression, enforcement discretion, and the effect on public performances and local event planning.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s broad definition of “lewd acts,” its application to a wide range of public venues and performances, and the felony penalty for intentional exposure in front of a minor. Opponents may argue that the language is vague or overinclusive and could sweep in protected expressive conduct, while supporters are likely to emphasize protecting minors and preventing public sexual displays. Another likely issue is the private right of action, which could expose individuals and event organizers to lawsuits in addition to criminal prosecution. Political subdivisions may also be concerned about their obligations to police public events and the limits of their liability protection.