Revenge Porn Prosecutions In Us Jurisdictions
Overview
Revenge porn refers to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images or videos, usually by a former partner to harass, humiliate, or threaten the subject. These acts can cause serious emotional distress and have legal consequences.
Legal Landscape
There is no single federal law specifically criminalizing revenge porn; prosecutions mostly occur under state laws, though some federal statutes apply in certain situations.
Many states have enacted specific revenge porn statutes criminalizing the distribution of sexually explicit images without consent.
Prosecution can involve a combination of laws such as harassment, cyberstalking, invasion of privacy, and sexual exploitation.
Penalties range from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on jurisdiction and severity.
Intent to harm or distress the victim is often a key element.
Defenses may include consent, lack of knowledge of distribution, or freedom of speech claims (though courts generally reject broad First Amendment defenses here).
Key Cases in Revenge Porn Prosecutions
Case 1: State v. VanBuren (2017) – Michigan
Facts: Defendant VanBuren was charged under Michigan’s revenge porn statute for distributing sexually explicit images of his ex-girlfriend without her consent.
Legal Issue: Whether the statute was constitutional and the evidence supported his conviction.
Ruling: The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, emphasizing the statute’s focus on protecting privacy and preventing harassment.
Significance: Affirmed the constitutionality of revenge porn laws and reinforced that distribution without consent is a criminal act.
Case 2: People v. Bowman (2016) – New York
Facts: Bowman shared explicit photos of a former partner on social media after a breakup.
Legal Issue: Whether the conduct constituted harassment and unauthorized distribution under New York’s civil and criminal laws.
Ruling: Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment. The court acknowledged the emotional harm caused by such distribution.
Significance: Demonstrated that even in states without specific revenge porn statutes at the time, prosecutors could pursue charges under harassment laws.
Case 3: Commonwealth v. Borrero (2019) – Massachusetts
Facts: Borrero posted nude images of his ex-girlfriend online after their breakup.
Legal Issue: Prosecution under Massachusetts’ new revenge porn statute.
Ruling: The court convicted Borrero, emphasizing the statute’s role in deterring non-consensual sharing.
Significance: One of the earlier prosecutions under Massachusetts’s relatively new revenge porn law; reinforced the shift towards criminal accountability.
Case 4: State v. Gammons (2017) – Oregon
Facts: Gammons sent sexually explicit images of his ex-partner to their friends without her consent.
Legal Issue: Whether Oregon’s revenge porn statute applied to distribution to third parties without the subject’s knowledge.
Ruling: The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that any non-consensual distribution qualifies.
Significance: Clarified that sharing images with third parties (not just public posting) is criminalized.
Case 5: United States v. Ulbricht (2015) – Federal Court
Facts: Although primarily charged with operating the Silk Road dark web marketplace, Ulbricht faced unrelated federal charges including distribution of non-consensual explicit material.
Legal Issue: Application of federal laws on distribution of obscene materials.
Ruling: The federal court held that distribution of non-consensual sexual images on a commercial scale could lead to criminal liability.
Significance: Illustrated how federal laws can apply in cases involving large-scale or interstate dissemination of revenge porn, especially when tied to other illegal activities.
Case 6: People v. Sarr (2020) – California
Facts: Defendant Sarr uploaded explicit images of his ex without consent.
Legal Issue: Application of California Penal Code § 647(j)(4), one of the strictest revenge porn laws.
Ruling: The court upheld the conviction and imposed significant fines and jail time.
Significance: Reinforced California’s tough stance on revenge porn, which criminalizes distribution regardless of intent to harm.
Common Legal Themes
Consent is critical: Distribution without consent is the core criminal element.
Intent to harm or harass the victim is often necessary but some states impose strict liability.
Third-party sharing is as illegal as posting publicly.
Statutory language varies: Some laws require proof of intent to cause distress, others criminalize any non-consensual sharing.
First Amendment defenses rarely succeed, as courts balance free speech with privacy rights.
Civil remedies often accompany criminal prosecutions, including restraining orders and damages.
Summary
Revenge porn prosecutions have grown rapidly across U.S. states, with many enacting specific laws.
Courts uphold convictions emphasizing privacy, dignity, and prevention of harassment.
Penalties vary but increasingly reflect the serious harm caused.
Even in absence of specific laws, other criminal statutes (harassment, stalking) can be leveraged.
Federal prosecutions occur but are rare unless linked to interstate distribution or other crimes.
RELATED Blog
0 comments