Revenge Porn Landmark Cases
🔍 What is Revenge Porn?
Revenge Porn refers to the non-consensual distribution or publication of intimate images or videos of an individual, typically by an ex-partner, with the intent to cause distress, humiliation, or harm. It’s a serious violation of privacy and can lead to criminal prosecution.
⚖️ Legal Framework Around Revenge Porn
Most jurisdictions have enacted specific laws criminalizing revenge porn, often under cybercrime, sexual offences, or privacy laws.
Elements usually include:
Distribution/sharing without consent
Intent to cause harm or distress
Sexual or intimate nature of content
Victims can seek criminal sanctions against perpetrators and civil remedies for damages.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Revenge Porn Cases
1. People v. Bollaert (2014, California, USA)
Facts:
Hunter Moore ran a website called "IsAnyoneUp?" which published explicit photos submitted by users, often without the consent of those pictured.
Legal Issues:
Non-consensual distribution of intimate images
Violation of California’s revenge porn laws
Outcome:
Moore pled guilty to federal charges including identity theft and hacking related to obtaining images. His conviction underscored the criminal liability for hosting and facilitating revenge porn content.
Significance:
One of the earliest and most high-profile cases targeting website operators enabling revenge porn.
2. R v. Stevens (2015, UK)
Facts:
Steven Stevens was convicted for sharing explicit images of his ex-girlfriend without her consent.
Charges:
Under the UK’s Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which made revenge porn a specific offence.
Outcome:
Stevens was sentenced to 18 weeks imprisonment, suspended, with community service.
Significance:
This was one of the first prosecutions under the UK’s revenge porn law, establishing the application of the new legislation.
3. State v. Jane Doe (2016, New Jersey, USA)
Facts:
John Doe shared private explicit images of his ex-partner on social media after a breakup.
Charges:
Charged under New Jersey’s “Image Protection Act” criminalizing revenge porn.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to six months in jail and probation.
Significance:
Reinforced the applicability of state laws protecting victims and deterring non-consensual sharing.
4. V.C. v. L.B. (2019, Australia, Supreme Court of Victoria)
Facts:
The accused shared sexually explicit images of the victim without consent and refused to remove them when asked.
Legal Issues:
Breach of privacy
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Outcome:
The court ordered damages payable to the victim and issued an injunction to prevent further distribution.
Significance:
This case highlighted civil remedies alongside criminal prosecution in revenge porn cases.
5. People v. Galanis (2018, New York, USA)
Facts:
Galanis shared intimate photos of his ex-girlfriend on Snapchat and other platforms.
Charges:
Violated New York's law against non-consensual dissemination of intimate images.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to community service and fines.
Significance:
Demonstrated the extension of revenge porn laws to social media platforms like Snapchat.
6. Nixon v. State (2017, Texas, USA)
Facts:
Nixon uploaded videos of his ex-partner without her consent to a revenge porn website.
Charges:
Charged under Texas Penal Code Section 21.16 related to unlawful disclosure or promotion of intimate visual material.
Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to probation and counseling.
Significance:
Case reinforced Texas’s specific statutory provisions addressing revenge porn.
7. Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015, Supreme Court of India) — Relevant Background
Context:
While not a revenge porn case per se, this case struck down Section 66A of the IT Act, which criminalized “offensive” online content, for being vague. It led to calls for more precise laws.
Impact:
Prompted lawmakers to introduce specific provisions addressing non-consensual sharing of intimate images (Section 66E and amendments in IT Act).
🔑 Key Legal Principles from These Cases
Revenge porn laws target non-consensual sharing of intimate images/videos with intent to harm.
Prosecutions rely on digital evidence, including social media posts, metadata, and device forensics.
Courts impose penalties ranging from fines, imprisonment, to community service.
Victims can seek injunctions and damages in civil courts.
Legislative evolution is ongoing worldwide to keep up with technology and protect victims.
Hosting or facilitating revenge porn content (e.g., website operators) can attract criminal liability.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Jurisdiction | Offence | Outcome | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| People v. Bollaert (2014) | California, USA | Hosting revenge porn website | Guilty plea, federal charges | Liability of facilitators |
| R v. Stevens (2015) | UK | Sharing intimate images | Suspended sentence | First under UK revenge porn law |
| State v. Jane Doe (2016) | New Jersey, USA | Sharing explicit images | Jail & probation | State-level statutory enforcement |
| V.C. v. L.B. (2019) | Australia | Sharing images without consent | Damages and injunction | Civil remedies alongside criminal |
| People v. Galanis (2018) | New York, USA | Sharing on Snapchat | Conviction, fines | Social media platforms involved |
| Nixon v. State (2017) | Texas, USA | Uploading videos | Probation and counseling | Reinforces state law application |
RELATED Blog
0 comments