Which U.S. states explicitly criminalize possession of pornographic material depicting bestiality, and what do their statutes say?

1. Arizona stands out for recording-specific language

Arizona is identified by the Animal Legal Defense Fund as having statutory language that criminalizes the possession, distribution, and sale of recordings that depict sexual assault of an animal, making it a clear example of a state that treats pornographic depictions involving animals as a distinct criminal category in addition to prohibiting the underlying conduct ^[1].

2. Most states outlaw the act of bestiality but not all expressly outlaw depictions

A broad sweep of state laws criminalizes sexual acts with animals under various labels—bestiality, sexual assault of an animal, or crimes historically termed “crimes against nature”—and many states treat the underlying act as a misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstances, but the supplied reporting does not show that most of those statutes explicitly criminalize possession of pornographic depictions; instead, the distinction between criminalizing the act versus criminalizing possession or distribution of visual material is an important statutory gap in many jurisdictions ^[2].

3. National surveys and tables show variation but limited possession detail

Compilations of state laws, such as the Animal Legal & Historical Center’s table, document how states differ in offense names, grading, and enhancements (for example, felonies where juveniles are involved), and they underscore that bestiality regulation is principally a matter of state law; however, those compilations, as reflected in the provided snippet, do not exhaustively catalogue which states include explicit language targeting recordings or other depictions, beyond highlighting a few statutory trends ^[2].

4. Context: pornography law frameworks and where depictions typically fall

General surveys of pornography law note that jurisdictions often treat categories like child pornography and zoophilic pornography as distinct issues subject to special rules, and they document a global patchwork of approaches to depiction offenses; such context helps explain why a state might have strong prohibitions on the act yet stop short of expressly proscribing possession of visual material, or might rely on obscenity statutes rather than bestiality-specific possession bans ^[3].

5. Limits of the available reporting and where uncertainty remains

The sources provided identify Arizona as explicitly criminalizing possession of recordings depicting animal sexual assault ^[1] and present broader state-by-state tables of bestiality statutes ^[2], but they do not supply a definitive, itemized list of every U.S. state that criminalizes possession of pornographic bestiality material; therefore, any claim about a comprehensive list of states beyond Arizona cannot be supported from these documents alone and would require direct statutory text review or an updated legal survey ^{[1] [2]}.

6. What this means for readers and researchers

For policymakers, prosecutors, or researchers seeking a definitive inventory, the reporting signals two actions: use state statutory compilations such as the Animal Legal & Historical Center as a starting point to identify act-based prohibitions ^[2], and then review each state’s criminal code for language that specifically addresses recordings, distribution, or possession as separate offenses—because only some jurisdictions (notably Arizona in the supplied reporting) make that explicit ^[1].