Adult-oriented Performance and Material Amendments
HB 114 reorganizes Utah’s criminal code provisions dealing with pornographic material, harmful-to-minors material, and adult-oriented performances. The bill separates conduct that is currently bundled into broader offenses and creates new stand-alone crimes for unlawful pornographic performance, aiding or abetting a minor in an unlawful pornographic performance, engaging in a performance harmful to minors while in the presence of a minor, and aiding or abetting a minor to engage in a harmful performance in the presence of another minor. It also revises existing offenses for distributing pornographic material, aiding a minor in distributing pornographic material, distributing material harmful to minors, and aiding a minor in distributing harmful material, including changes to mental state language, penalty tiers, and clarifying edits.
The bill also updates related statutes so the new offenses are referenced in school-property restrictions, racketeering/pattern-of-unlawful-activity provisions, forfeiture law, criminal-investigation records law, and the civil warning/enforcement statute for obscene or pornographic material. It adds a coordination clause with S.B. 18 to resolve overlapping amendments to one penalty provision, and it takes effect May 6, 2026. No money is appropriated.
The overall sentiment in the available legislative history appears strongly favorable. The bill passed the House committee stages unanimously, passed the House 70-0, and received a unanimous favorable recommendation in the Senate committee. There are no committee transcript snippets provided, so the record does not show detailed debate or public testimony in the materials supplied.
The main points of contention suggested by the text are structural and legal rather than partisan: the bill narrows and splits offenses into separate crimes, changes the required mental state for one offense, and adjusts penalties, which can affect how prosecutors charge cases and how courts apply the law. The bill also preserves and expands First Amendment-related safeguards in the forfeiture and racketeering sections, indicating sensitivity to prior-restraint concerns when these offenses are used as predicate acts. Another practical issue is the coordination with S.B. 18, which suggests overlapping legislative changes needed to be harmonized.
HB 114 amends multiple sections of Utah Code Title 76 and related enforcement statutes to create new offenses and conform cross-references. It removes certain conduct from broader distribution offenses and places it into new stand-alone crimes, while also revising penalties and culpable mental-state language for offenses involving pornographic material and harmful-to-minors material. The bill expands the list of predicate offenses in school-property, racketeering, forfeiture, and investigative-record statutes, and it preserves First Amendment limitations on prior restraint and forfeiture when these offenses are used in civil or criminal enforcement.
The bill appears to have broad support in the Legislature based on the recorded votes: unanimous committee recommendations in the House and Senate committee, and a 70-0 House floor vote. With no transcript excerpts available, there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized opposition or significant floor debate. The available record suggests the measure was treated as a technical and policy refinement to existing obscenity and minors-related criminal laws rather than a controversial bill.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s expansion and reclassification of criminal offenses involving adult-oriented performances and harmful material, especially the creation of new stand-alone crimes and the revised mental-state standard for conduct occurring in the presence of minors. These changes may affect prosecutorial discretion, charging decisions, and the scope of liability for performers, facilitators, and minors. The bill also raises constitutional sensitivity by tying these offenses to forfeiture and racketeering remedies while expressly limiting prior restraint, indicating concern about balancing enforcement with free-speech protections. The coordination clause with S.B. 18 suggests there was also concern about avoiding conflicting amendments to the same code section.