Revenge Porn Prosecutions In Usa
1. State v. Hunter Moore (2014, California)
Facts: Hunter Moore ran the website “Is Anyone Up?” which published intimate images of people without consent. Many victims were minors or unaware their images would be public.
Charges: Hacking, identity theft, aiding and abetting revenge porn, and aggravated computer hacking.
Prosecution Argument: Authorities presented evidence of hacking into email accounts, consent violations, and solicitation of images from third parties. Victims testified about emotional distress and harassment.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 2.5 years in federal prison, fined $10,000, and ordered restitution to victims.
Significance: First major federal case showing criminal liability for facilitating revenge porn on a commercial scale.
2. State v. Jordan Brown (2016, New Jersey)
Facts: Brown uploaded nude photos of his ex-girlfriend to social media to publicly humiliate her after their breakup.
Charges: Cyber harassment, invasion of privacy, and revenge porn under New Jersey law.
Prosecution Argument: The prosecution relied on screenshots, timestamps, and witness testimony to show intentional publication without consent. Emotional distress evidence highlighted the harm caused.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 1 year in county jail, 2 years probation, and mandatory counseling.
Significance: Demonstrated state-level enforcement and victim restitution in revenge porn cases.
3. State v. Anthony Amador (2017, Texas)
Facts: Amador shared sexually explicit videos of his ex-partner to coerce her into resuming the relationship.
Charges: Revenge porn, cyberstalking, and harassment.
Prosecution Argument: Digital forensics proved distribution of videos to multiple contacts and social media accounts. Victim testimony confirmed coercion and fear for safety.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 3 years in state prison, and ordered no-contact orders and restitution.
Significance: Showed that coercion and threats enhance charges in revenge porn cases.
4. United States v. Taylor Smith (2018, California)
Facts: Smith posted explicit images of his ex-girlfriend online after hacking her personal cloud storage.
Charges: Federal computer fraud, identity theft, and interstate dissemination of obscene material.
Prosecution Argument: Investigators traced IP addresses, emails, and cloud logs. Smith’s repeated hacking of her devices was key in proving intent to harm.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 5 years federal prison and ordered restitution to the victim.
Significance: Illustrated federal jurisdiction when digital hacking and cross-state dissemination are involved.
5. State v. Michael Cohen (2019, New York)
Facts: Cohen, a former employee, leaked sexually explicit images of a colleague to multiple online forums as revenge after termination.
Charges: Revenge porn, harassment, and defamation.
Prosecution Argument: Evidence included screenshots, emails, and victim statements of psychological trauma. Intentional targeting of the victim in public forums was emphasized.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 2 years in state prison, and ordered psychological counseling and restitution.
Significance: Demonstrates workplace-related revenge porn and how courts consider emotional distress as aggravating factor.
6. State v. Lucas Fernandez (2021, Illinois)
Facts: Fernandez shared sexually explicit videos of his ex-partner on social media to damage her reputation. He also threatened to send the videos to her family.
Charges: Revenge porn, cyberstalking, and intimidation.
Prosecution Argument: Digital evidence from social media, witness statements, and communication logs confirmed intentional dissemination and threats.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 4 years in state prison, plus fines and mandatory restraining orders.
Significance: Highlighted threats and intimidation combined with revenge porn as aggravating factors in sentencing.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Jurisdiction: Most cases are prosecuted under state revenge porn laws, but federal charges apply when hacking, interstate distribution, or commercial exploitation is involved.
Evidence: Screenshots, IP addresses, digital forensics, victim testimony, and social media logs are crucial.
Penalties: Sentences range from 1–5 years in prison, fines, restitution, and mandatory counseling.
Aggravating Factors: Use of minors, coercion, hacking, threats, or commercial exploitation increases severity.
Victim Impact: Courts increasingly consider emotional trauma and reputational harm when determining sentences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments