![Revenge Porn Laws: Learn How to Fight Back [50 State Interactive Map] Featured Image](https://www.minclaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Revenge-Porn-How-to-Fight-Back-700x0-c-default.jpg)
Revenge Porn Laws: Learn How to Fight Back [50 State Interactive Map]
Table Of Contents
This page has been peer-reviewed, fact-checked, and edited by multiple qualified attorneys and legal professionals to ensure substantive accuracy and coverage. Our publication process is robust, following a 16-step content creation and review process.
Of all the posts I’ve written in my years of running this blog, few have gotten more traffic and response than an article I wrote three years ago on revenge porn. It focused on the malicious revenge porn site, MyEx.com, which posts intimate, personal and sometimes pornographic images often submitted by the subject’s ex-lover. The site’s operators allow posters to spread rumors and make unverified attacks on exes, and even attach links to the victim’s Facebook and Twitter accounts.
The MyEx.com story rivets reader attention because of the mortifying shock caused by finding one’s intimate photos or videos published online without consent. Revenge porn can ruin relationships with not only lovers but family and friends, and devastate careers. It may be the worst nightmare of the digital age.
However, the legal and legislative environment surrounding revenge porn is changing rapidly. Courts have issued some critical verdicts against revenge porn purveyors, and state legislators and Congress are stepping into the fray. In the wake of a massive revenge porn scandal in the armed forces uncovered in March, Facebook launched a policy initiative designed to make it easier to remove intimate photos the individual never wanted to be posted online. With all the news on revenge porn, it seems like an appropriate time to revisit the issue with an updated post on the subject.
You have the right to have the content removed and take action against those who have wronged you. Reach out to us today for a confidential consultation.Are you the target of revenge porn?
Video: Help! My Nudes Are on the Internet – How Do I Remove Them?
What Is Non-Consensual Pornography?
Of course the term “revenge porn” is a misnomer. Sometimes there is no revenge motive. Extortion or maliciousness can sometimes motivate posts. A significant portion of cases “involves people who do not even know each other,” writes Mary Anne Franks a professor at the University of Miami School of Law. “The proprietors of revenge porn websites, for example, do not have personal grievances against the thousands of victims depicted without consent on their platforms.” She added that revenge was not on the minds of the California patrol officers who accessed and shared intimate photos of suspects picked up for DUI or the nursing home caretakers who shared private photos of their patients on Snapchat.
Specialists prefer to use the term “non-consensual pornography” to describe the publishing of intimate photos without the permission of the photos’ subjects.
The roots of revenge porn pre-date the internet, going back to a feature in Hustler magazine in the 1970s and 1980s. Hustler ran a section called “Beaver Hunt” in which readers were invited to send in homemade photos. One of the first lawsuits involving revenge porn came when a Texas woman named LaJuan Wood found that Hustler had published nude photos of her taken by her husband. It turned out the Woods’ neighbors had stolen the pictures and submitted them to the magazine. The neighbors forged a consent form and made up information about LaJuan’s sexual fantasies. LaJuan Wood was so distraught, she needed psychological counseling. She sued for defamation and invasion of privacy and won $150,000 in damages.
Celebrities And Everyday People Victimized By Revenge Porn
Of course, with the growth of the internet, the number of cases of revenge porn has proliferated. Some cases involve celebrities like Scarlett Johansson or Mischa Barton. However, most victims are people who are pretty much anonymous, or at least were anonymous before their right to privacy was violated.
A 2013 survey by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a nonprofit group fighting revenge porn, helped shed light on who the victims are and how Revenge Porn damaged their lives. The survey encompassed 361 victims of nonconsensual pornography. Fully 90% of the victims were women, and 57% said an ex-boyfriend posted the material. The vast majority of victims had taken the photos themselves. Meanwhile, 82% said publishing the intimate material had triggered significant impairment either in their social life or at work. Forty-two percent had sought psychological help. Three percent went so far as to legally change their names and 42% considered doing so.
Lately, some victims have been fighting back more aggressively. Anisha Vora’s ex-boyfriend posted nude photos of her that were picked up by 3,000 websites. Strangers who’d seen the photos showed up on her doorstep. She called the police on her ex, who was later convicted of invasion of privacy. She also became a volunteer at the aforementioned Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, which provides support for victims and information for the general public
Leah Juliett was 15 years old when a male classmate put some nude photos she’d sent him online. On April 1, Juliett, now a college sophomore, launched an anti-revenge porn march in Brooklyn.
Revenge Porn Statistics
According to a recent survey by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative:
- 90% of victims of revenge porn are women
- 82% reported significant social or occupational issues or impairment in other areas of life
- 93% of revenge porn victims reported suffering significant emotional distress
- 51% of victims experienced suicidal thoughts
- 83% of revenge porn victims said they had taken nude photos/videos of themselves and shared it with someone else
- 90 percent of victims of revenge porn are women
- 68% were 18-30 years old, 27% were 18-22
- 57% of victims said their material was posted by an ex-boyfriend, 6% said it was posted by an ex-girlfriend, 23% said it was posted by an ex-friend, 7% said it was posted by a friend, 7% said it was posted by a family member
- Information that was posted with the material:
- Full name: 59%
- Email Address: 26%
- Social network info/screenshot of social network profile: 49%
- Physical home address: 16%
- Phone number: 20%
- Work Address: 14%
- 93 percent of revenge porn victims reported suffering significant emotional distress
- 82 percent reported significant social or occupational distress, or impairment in other areas of life
- 42% sought out psychological services due to being a victim
- 34% said that being a victim has jeopardized their relationships with family
- 38% said it has jeopardized their relationships with friends
- 13% said they have lost a significant other/partner due to being a victim
- 37% said they have been teased by others due to being a victim
- 49% said they have been harassed or stalked online by users that have seen their material
- 30% said they have been harassed or stalked outside of the Internet (in person, over the phone) by users that have seen the material online
- 40% fear the loss of a current or future partner once he or she becomes aware that this is in their past
- 54% fear the discovery of the material by their current and/or future children
- 25% have had to close down an email address and create a new one due to receiving harassing, abusive, and/or obscene messages
- 26% have had to create a new identity (or identities) for themselves online
- 26% have had to take time off from work or take less credits in/a semester off from school due to being a victim
- 54% have had difficulty focusing on work or at school due to being a victim
- 55% fear that the professional reputation they have built up could be tarnished even decades into the future
- 57% occasionally or often have fears about how this will affect their professional advancement
- 52% feel as though they are living with something to hide that they cannot acknowledge to a potential employer (such as through an interview).
- 39% say that this has affected their professional advancement with regard to networking and putting their name out there
- 3% have legally changed their name due to being a victim
- 42% haven’t changed their name, but have thought of it
- 42% have had to explain the situation to professional or academic supervisors, coworkers, or colleagues
- 51 percent of victims experienced suicidal thoughts
US Laws Against Revenge Porn
As victims have become more vocal in decrying abuses, politicians have taken notice. At a national level, California Rep. Jackie Speier introduced legislation in July of 2016 making distribution of intimate images without consent a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison. Speier’s bill is called the Intimate Privacy Protection Act.
Video: What to Do If Someone is Sharing Your Intimate Images Without Consent
The bill would make it a crime to distribute a “visual depiction of a person who is identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image and who is engaging in sexually explicit conduct, or of the naked genitals or post-pubescent female nipple of a person, with reckless disregard for the person’s lack of consent to the distribution.” Speier has said there is bipartisan support for the measure and she hopes to press it in the next session of Congress.
The national legislative push follows on the heels of efforts by many state legislatures to combat revenge porn. Before 2013, only three U.S. states had criminal laws against non-consensual pornography. Now, 48 states and the District of Columbia have anti-revenge porn statutes on the books.
Laws targeting revenge porn have a mixed record of effectiveness, however. Arizona passed an anti-revenge porn law in 2014. But Arizona booksellers and the American Civil Liberties Union sued to block the law, arguing that it was “unconstitutionally overbroad.” They argued that the law violates First Amendment rights to free expression. The language of the law was so sweeping, opponents argued, that it might ban innocuous baby pictures, or historical photos, like the famous image of the “napalm girl” running from a bombing attack during the Vietnam War. Arizona courts agreed that the law applied too broad of a brush, and the state passed a new, narrower law last year.
California adopted a law against cyber-exploitation in 2013 that makes revenge porn a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in prison and a $1,000 fine. However, as I have noted previously, there are flaws in the California legislation. For victims, the penalties do not seem harsh enough. Another limitation of the laws is that it does not cover “selfies,” only images taken by others. Furthermore, the law does nothing to help remove the images from revenge porn websites. It only serves to punish the person who submitted or posted the content.
As of April 2017, 10 states have joined the fight and introduced new bills to make revenge porn a criminal offense. However, it is not uncommon for these bills to get shot down by lawmakers or even the governor, as was the case in Rhode Island last year. There are still 4 States in total that offer their citizens little to no protection in this area and no proposed bills to amend.
Use the map below to see if your state has laws criminalizing revenge porn.
Revenge Porn Laws by State
| State | Penalty | About | Statute/tort |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | First offense is a Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail); subsequent offenses are Class C Felony (punishable by up to ten years of incarceration) | Prohibits distributing a private image of another person, including knowingly circulating a private image with the intent to harass, threaten, coerce, or intimidate the subject of the content. | AL Code § 13A-6-240 |
| Alaska | Class B Misdemeanor (punishable by up to 90 days in jail and/or $2,000 fine) | Prohibits publishing or distributing electronic or printed photographs, pictures, or films that show the genitals of another person, or that depict that person engaged in sexual activity. | AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-1425 |
| Arizona | Class 5 Felony; Class 4 Felony if image is disclosed electronically (punishable by 1.5 years in prison, a fine of up to $150,000, and possible registration as a sex offender); Threats to disclose are treated as a Class 1 Misdemeanor | Prohibits intentionally disclosing the image of an identifiable person in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual activity, when the person has an expectation of privacy, and when the offender intends to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the subject of the content. | AZ Rev. Stat. § 13-1425 |
| Arkansas | Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail, and/or a fine of up to $2,500) | Prohibits unlawful distribution of sexual images or recordings. | AR Code, § 5-26-314 |
| California | Misdemeanor (punishable by a maximum of one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000) | Prohibits distributing images or videos of another person’s intimate body parts without the person’s consent. The person distributing the material must do so with the intent to cause emotional distress or suffering. Distributing images or videos of another person engaged in sexual activity without their consent and for the purpose of causing emotional distress or suffering are also prohibited. | CA Penal Code § 647(j)(4) |
| Colorado | Class 1 Misdemeanor (punishable by up to 364 days in jail and a mandatory fine of $10,000) | Prohibits posting or distributing any photograph, video, or other image displaying the private intimate parts of an identifiable person eighteen years of age or older with the intent to harass the depicted person and inflict serious emotional distress upon the depicted person. | CO Rev. Stat. § 18-7-107, § 18-7-108 |
| Connecticut | Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a potential fine of up to $2,000) | Prohibits unlawful dissemination of an intimate image with intent to cause harm and without the victim’s consent. | CT Gen. Stat. § 53a-189c |
| Delaware | Class A Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,300), Class G Felony if aggravating factors are present (punishable by up to two years in jail and/or a fine) | Prohibits posting a nude or sexually explicit photo or video of someone on the internet without their consent. | 11 DE Code § 1335 |
| Florida | First Degree Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail and/or up to $1,000 in criminal fines); subsequent offenses may carry felony charges and penalties | Prohibits publishing a sexually explicit image of another person along with personal identifying information of the depicted person’s content, for no legitimate purpose, and with the intent of causing the depicted person emotional distress. | FL Stat. § 784.049 |
| Georgia | Aggravated Misdemeanor, but subsequent charges can be a Felony (punishable by one to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $100,000); OR if the material is posed on a website that advertises, the offense is treated as a Felony (punishable by one to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $100,000) | Prohibits knowingly and without consent transmitting or posting photos of person engaged in a sexual act, and the transmission or posting is harassment or cause financial loss to the depicted person and serves no legitimate purpose to the depicted person. | GA Code § 16-11-90 |
| Hawaii | First degree violations are a Misdemeanor, second degree violations are a Class C Felony (punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a fine) | Prohibits transmitting nude photos or videos of a person on the internet without their consent and transmitting photos or videos of a person engaged in sexual activity without their consent. | HI Rev. Stat. § 711-1110.9 |
| Idaho | Felony | Prohibits publishing an image of the intimate areas of another person without their consent. The images must be published intentionally or with reckless disregard and the offender must have known that the images were meant to be private. | ID Code § 18-6605 |
| Illinois | Felony (punishable by 1-3 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $25,000) | Prohibits intentionally publishing an image of another person who is at least 18 years old, identifiable from the image itself or information displayed in connection with the image, and engaged in sexual activity or depicted with intimate body parts exposed in whole or in part. | 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 |
| Indiana | First offense is a Class A Misdemeanor; If there is a prior unrelated conviction under this section of the Indiana Criminal Code, it is a Level 6 Felony | Prohibits distributing “intimate images,” defined as those featuring a person in the nude or engaged in sexual activity. | IN Code §35-45-4-8 |
| Iowa | Aggravated Misdemeanor (punishable by up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $8,540) | Prohibits disseminating or publishing – or causing to disseminate or publish – a photograph or film showing another person in a state of full or partial nudity or engaged in sexual activity. The offender must also know that the victim has not consented to the circulation of the material. | IA Code § 708.7 |
| Kansas | First offense is Presumptive Probation; Second offense is Felony Blackmail (punishable by up to six years in prison) | (This law pertains to privacy issues) Prohibits uploading sexual photos or videos of another person without their permission. | KS Stat. §21-6101(a)(8) |
| Kentucky | First offense is a Class A Misdemeanor; subsequent offenses are a Class D Felony; if offender profits off the distribution of the material it is a Class D Felony and each subsequent offense for profit is a Class C Felony | Prohibits distributing sexually explicit images without the subject’s consent. | KY Rev. Stat. § 531.120 |
| Louisiana | Violations are punishable by up to two years in jail and/or a fine of up to $10,000 | Prohibits disseminating a picture or video of a person in the nude or engaged in sexual activity without their consent or when the photo or video was taken with reasonable expectations of privacy. Offender must have intent to harass, threaten, or intimidate the subject of the material. The subject must not have consented to the publication of the material. This law also prohibits allowing for the dissemination of such content. | LA Rev. Stat. § 14:283.2 |
| Maine | Class D Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,000) | Prohibits transmitting sexually explicit photos of a person on the internet without their consent. | 17-A ME Rev. Stat. § 511-A |
| Maryland | Misdemeanor (punishable by up to two years in jail and/or a fine of $500) | Prohibits intentionally publishing any photograph, film, videotape, recording, or other reproduction of a person engaged in sexual activity, and the publication must occur online or by other digital means. For guilt to be established, the offender must know that the victim did not consent to the placement of the content on the internet and the victim must have had a reasonable expectation that the content would be kept private. | MD Crim. Law Code § 3-809 |
| Massachusetts | None | There is currently no law protecting the citizens of Massachusetts | N/A |
| Michigan | Violations punishable by up to 93 days in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000. Subsequent violations are a Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a fine of up to $1,000) | Prohibits posting images or video recordings of a sexual nature online, without someone’s consent. Offender must post the content intentionally and with intent to threaten, coerce, or intimidate the subject of the material. The offense should have know that the subject was under a reasonable expectation of privacy and the subject must be identifiable in the content. | MI Comp L § 750.145e |
| Minnesota | Violations are a Gross Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of $1,000); If material causes financial loss, is characterized by intent to profit or intent to harass, or was posted to a porn site, violations are a Felony; Victim may be entitled to damages related to relevant financial losses or mental anguish; Damages may also be equal to any profit made by the person who intentionally disclosed the image; Civil penalties are capped at $10,000 and costs/fees. | Prohibits intentionally disseminating a private sexual image of another person without the subject’s consent when the subject (1) has intimate body parts exposed in full or in part, (2) is identifiable, and (3) had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Subject’s consent to the creation of the content is not a viable defense against offender’s liability. | MN Stat § 617.261 |
| Mississippi | First offense is a Misdemeanor (punishable by up to six months in a county jail and/or a fine or up to $1,000); subsequent offenses are a Felony (punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a fine of up to $2,000); Offenses for financial profit are also a Felony | Prohibits circulating images or video depicting a person’s intimate body parts. | Miss. Code §97-29-64.1 |
| Missouri | Class D Felony. Civil damages available but may not exceed $10,000. If victim is entitled to actual damages they will be awarded the larger of the two amounts ($10,000 or actual damages) | Prohibits threatening the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images, circulating such content for the purpose of coercing or attempting to coerce another person, or obtaining such content in circumstances a reasonable person would understand the image was to remain private or was obtained against the will of the that person. The offender must be attempting to derive financial or other gain from the content. The subject must be identifiable from the image or the information associated with the image and the subject must be engaged in sexual activity or have their intimate body parts exposed in whole or in part. | MO Rev. Stat. § 573.110 and § 573.112 |
| Montana | First violation punishable by a fine of $500 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months; Second violation is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to one year; Third and subsequent violations punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to five years in state prison | (This law is about privacy and communications) Prohibits publication of private images. | MT Code § 45-8-213 |
| Nebraska | First offense is a Class I Misdemeanor, subsequent violation is a Class IV Felony. | Prohibits distributing images or videos of another person’s intimate body parts or of another person engaged in sexual activity. Offender must do so knowingly and intentionally and must have known that the subject did not consent to making the content public. Subject must have had a reasonable expectation the image would remain private. The content must have served no legitimate purpose. | NE Code § 28-311.08 and § 25-3503 |
| Nevada | Violations punishable by one to four years in Nevada State Prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000 | Prohibits electronically disseminating or selling images or videos of another person that are intimate in nature. Subject must have (1) not given prior consent to the electronic dissemination or sale of the content, (2) had a reasonable expectation that the intimate content would be kept private, and (3) been at least 18 years of age at time content was created. | NV Rev. Stat. § 200-780 |
| New Hampshire | Class B Felony | Prohibits the nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images with the intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the subject of the content. | NH Rev. Stat. § 644:9-a |
| New Jersey | Felony (punishable by three to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $15,000) | Prohibits making a nonconsensual recording that reveals another person’s intimate body parts or shows another person engaged in sexual activity without their consent. | NJ Rev. Stat. § 2C:14-9 |
| New Mexico | First offense is a Misdemeanor, second offense is a Felony | Prohibits distributing sensitive images without authorization via distribution, publication, using electronic communications to broadcast, and making such content publicly available by other means. | NM Stat. § 30-37A-1 |
| New York | Class A Misdemeanor | Prohibits the dissemination or publication of an intimate image and the publication of images or videos of a person engaged in sexual activity without their consent. | NY Penal L § 245.15 |
| North Carolina | Class H Felony | Prohibits knowingly disclosing a sexual image of another person with the intent to either (1) coerce, harass, intimidate, demean, humiliate, or cause financial loss to the subject of the content, or (2) cause others to coerce, harass, intimidate, demean, humiliate, or cause financial loss to the subject when the subject is identifiable from the image or the information connected to the image. | NC Gen. Stat. § 14-190.5A |
| North Dakota | Class A Misdemeanor | Prohibits disclosing nude or sexual images of a person without the person’s consent and with the intent to identify the person and cause harm. | ND § 12.1-17-07.2 |
| Ohio | First offense is a Third Degree Misdemeanor; Second offense is a Second Degree Misdemeanor; Subsequent offenses are First Degree Misdemeanors. When the offender is under the age of 18 and the subject of the image is less than 5 years older than the offender, the offender will not be prosecuted. Civil remedies include the recovery of damages regardless of whether the offender profited from circulating the material of the victim. | Prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images. | OH Rev. Code § 2917.211 |
| Oklahoma | Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year in jail and/or a fine of up to $1,000) | Prohibits disseminating private sexual images of a person without that person’s consent. | 21 OK Stat. § 1040.13b |
| Oregon | Class A Misdemeanor; repeated offenses are a Class C Felony | Prohibits the unlawful dissemination of an intimate image. | OR Rev. Stat. § 163.472 |
| Pennsylvania | Violations punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or up to one year in prison | Prohibits publishing any sexually explicit image with the intent of causing the subject distress and without the consent of the subject. | 18 PA Cons. Stat. § 3131 |
| Rhode Island | First violation is a Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000); Subsequent violations are a Felony (punishable by up to three years in prison and/or a fine of $3,000); Violations involving blackmail are punishable by up to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000 | Prohibits the unauthorized dissemination of indecent material when an offender intentionally circulates content of an identifiable person over 18 years of age that is sexually explicit or features intimate body parts. The content must have been created with the reasonable expectation that the content would remain private and it must have been published without the subject’s consent and will reckless disregard for the likelihood the subject would suffer harm as a result of the publication. For guilt to be established, the offender could have also published the material solely to cause the subject harm or with the intent to harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the subject. | RI Gen. L § 11-64-3 |
| South Carolina | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| South Dakota | Class 1 Misdemeanor, but if the victim is 17 years old or younger a violation is a Class 6 Felony | Prohibits recording a person’s intimate body parts through or under their clothing and recording a person engaged in sexual activity. The offender must have done either or both of these activities without the subject’s consent or knowledge. For guilt to be established, the offender could also have engaged in either or both of the above mentioned behaviors merely with the intent to self-gratify or to harass, embarrass, and invade the privacy of another person. Under these circumstances, the subject must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Using, disclosing, or disseminating such content is also prohibited, if the offender intended to self-gratify or to harass, embarrass, and invade the privacy of another person. The offender must have published the content knowingly and intentionally. This statute also applies to images that have been edited to falsely resemble a person, while the content bearing this resemblance must also be of a sexually explicit nature. The offender must do so without the consent or knowledge of the person whose image is depicted and with the intent to self-gratify or to harass, to embarrass, and to invade the privacy of the person whose image is depicted. | SD Codified L § 22-21-4 |
| Tennessee | Class A Misdemeanor | Prohibits dissemination of sexually explicit material with the intent to cause emotional distress. This law also applied to a person distributing an image of the intimate parts of another identifiable person if (1) the image was photographed under circumstances where the parties agreed or understood the image would remain private, and (2) the person depicted in the image suffers emotional distress. | TN Code § 39-13-301 |
| Texas | State Jail Felony | Prohibits the unlawful disclosure or promotion of intimate visual material if the offender intentionally disclosed the material without the subject’s consent and the material depicts a person engaged in sexual activity or a person’s intimate body parts exposed in full or in part. | TX Penal Code § 21.16 |
| Utah | Class A Misdemeanor | Prohibits knowingly or intentionally distributing sexual images to any third party without the subject’s consent. | UT Code § 76-5b-203 |
| Vermont | Violations are punishable by up to 2 years in prison and/or a fine of up to $2,000. If the offender disseminates the material for profit, they may be imprisoned for up to five years and/or be fined up to $10,000 | Prohibits the nonconsensual dissemination of someone’s nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos. | 13 VSA § 2606 |
| Virginia | Class 1 Misdemeanor (punishable by up to two years in prison and/or a fine) | Prohibits disseminating sexual photos without the subject’s consent and with the malicious intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate the subject. | VA Code § 18.2-386.2 |
| Washington | Gross Misdemeanor. If the violation involves stalking, Class C Felony | Prohibits intentionally and maliciously disclosing an intimate image of another person without their consent. | WA Rev Code § 9A.86.010 |
| Washington D.C. | Felony (punishable by a fine of up to $12,500 and/or three years in prison) | Prohibits knowingly disclosing one or more sexual images of another identifiable person when (1) the person depicted did not consent to the disclosure of the sexual image, (2) there was an agreement or understanding between the person depicted and person disclosing that the sexual image would not be disclosed and (3) the offender intended to harm the person depicted or receive financial gain. | DC Code § 22-2051 et seq |
| West Virginia | Misdemeanor (punishable by a fine between $1,000 and $5,000 and/or up to one year in jail | Prohibits intentionally displaying sexually explicit or intimate images of another person in a public way, or distributing or threatening to disclose sexually explicit or intimate images of another person without their consent. | WV Code § 61-8-28 |
| Wisconsin | Class I Felony | Prohibits nonconsensual distribution of images featuring a nude or partially nude person or person engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The subject must have had a reasonable expectation at the time the image was captured that the image would remain private and the offender must have or should have known the subject did not consent to the capturing of the image. | WI Stat. § 942.09 |
| Wyoming | Misdemeanor (punishable by up to one year of imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $5,000) | Prohibits the unlawful dissemination of intimate images. | WY Stat. 6-4-306 |
Successful Prosecutions Against Revenge Porn
Given the limitations of the revenge porn statute, California prosecutors have had to use creative and aggressive legal strategies to put a dent in online abuses. In 2015, California prosecutors won the state’s first conviction of an operator of a revenge porn website. Rather than applying the state revenge porn law against 28-year-old San Diego resident Kevin Bollaert, prosecutors charged him with felony extortion, conspiracy and identity theft. Bollard ran two revenge porn-related sites, UGotPosted.com and ChangeMyReputation.com. He posted photos, lewd commentary, and victims addresses on the first site and ran a “reputation management” service which charged victims to remove the content on the second site.
“Just because you are sitting behind a computer, committing what is essentially a cowardly and criminal act, you will not be shielded from the law or jail,” California Attorney General Kamala Harris said after the conviction. Bollaert is now serving an eight-year prison sentence for his crimes.
Harris later succeeded in prosecuting the head of another revenge porn site, WinByState.com, on extortion, attempted extortion and conspiracy charges. Casey Meyering, the site’s operator, had also sought payment from women for removing photos. He was arrested in Oklahoma but had a California-specific user forum on the site with more than 400 postings. Meyering received a three-year prison sentence.
Despite the occasional court victory against revenge porn purveyors, MyEx.com and many other sites continue online, causing heartbreak and havoc for their victims.
4Chan, 8chan, And Other Anonymous Porn Discussion Forums: The New Frontier Of Revenge Porn And Cyber Harassment
The trouble is, revenge porn is a hydra-headed phenomenon. When legal pressure forces one site to tone down content or shut down completely, nonconsensual pornography often just migrates to other sites.
One of the newest frontiers is 4chan, described by the New York Times as ““one of the darkest corners of the Web.” 4chan is organized by threads covering subjects ranging from Anime and Manga to Hardcore porn. It’s similar to Reddit, but users never have to register or use an account name.
The anonymity 4chan offers posters makes it an ideal venue for revenge porn. In 2014, hackers caused an enormous ruckus by posting nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton posting nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and other stars on 4Chan. Meanwhile, 4chan begat the even more toxic 8chan, which Fusion called “the world’s most vile website.”
Marines United: A Possible Landmark in Revenge Porn
The emergence in March 2017 of a massive revenge porn crises within the armed forces could turn out to be a watershed moment in sparking action against the abuses.
The case centered on an invitation-only online group called Marines United, which was made up of about 30,000 active duty Marines or veterans. The group shared naked photos of female service members through a private Google Drive account. Group members not only uploaded images of dozens of servicewomen, but also listed the women’s names, ranks, and bases. Marines United even posted screenshots of the women’s social media accounts. Service members who participated in photo sharing were stationed across the world, from Japan to North Carolina, and represented a range of military branches from air wing to infantry, according to the military website, The War Horse, which first broke the story.
The group’s activities have caused a wave of outrage. Congress is holding hearings. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service, the navy’s primary law enforcement arm, is also pursuing an investigation. However, non-consensual pornography of a service member is now a crime in the Navy and Marine Corps as of April 19, 2017. An interim revision to a statute prohibits Navy and Marine Corps personnel from posting intimate photos “if the person making the distribution or broadcast does so without legal justification or excuse,” the regulation reads.
But none of this has been much solace to victims. As authorities have shut down Marines United, explicit photos collected on the site have ricocheted around the Internet, already turning up for sale on the dark web.
On March 15, 2017, a California lawmaker announced legislation that criminalizes non-consensual pornography in the military. Introduced by Rep. Jackie Speier, the bill comes in the wake of the national new coverage of nude female Marine Corps members images being spread through Facebook.
Facebook Faces Up to Revenge Porn
Amid the firestorm, Facebook was compelled to take action. On April 5, Facebook announced new tools aimed at preventing revenge porn from being shared on Facebook, Messenger, and Instagram. Under the new policy, a person victimized by revenge porn would be able to report the abuse to Facebook’s community operations team. In most cases, the team will disable the account that was sharing the intimate images without permission, Facebook said. Beyond that, Facebook said it would apply photo matching technology to block anyone else from attempting to share the photos on Facebook, Messenger, or Instagram.
However, groups representing servicewomen were not satisfied. A leader of “Not in My Marine Corps,” an organization of Marines, veterans and civilians fighting sexual harassment, sent an impassioned open letter to Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, who is known for her activism empowering women to get ahead in the workplace
“Facebook has been negligent in removing pages, groups, and users, that actively promote non-consensual intimate photo sharing and incite sexual violence and harassment,” wrote Erin Kirk-Cuomo, co-founder of Not in My Marine Corps. She added: “Further, the reticence of Facebook to take prompt action on this issue has cultivated a belief that this behavior is tolerated. In the wake of the Marines United unmasking, dozens of similar and copycat groups have been created. The current screening and reporting process remains largely ineffective. I have heard from concerned users that they have been forced to report these pages multiple times a day for weeks in order for Facebook to review the validity of the claims all while hiding behind automated and couched responses. This slow removal process allows this cancer to metastasize.”
The tech magazine Wired agreed that Facebook’s measure fell short of resolving the problem, noting that “revenge porn inflicts damage the first time it’s shared, so removing something after it’s already been posted is a second-best solution. And this measure wouldn’t even catch the non-consensual porn shared within a closed ecosystem like the Marines United group. “ Also, Wired noted that reporting the non-consensual porn on Facebook would not stop its spread to other sites on the internet. In the long-term, the magazine stated that resolving the problem could well depend on advances in Artificial Intelligence technology designed to scan and block revenge porn images before the are posted. Until that time comes, however, individuals will need to rely on measures that are already available to them to remove non-consensual imagery from the Internet. Such measures include contacting the host site to remove the images and sometimes hiring an attorney.
Permanently Remove Revenge Porn From the Internet
The easiest way to avoid becoming a victim of revenge porn, of course, is to avoid sharing intimate photos in the first place. All too often love doesn’t last. But the photos one lover sends to another do, and that can cause endless grief if the split is acrimonious.
If you do become a victim, it’s important to take screenshots of the websites the intimate material turns up on. This can provide important evidence. I good resource and to use to record evidence in forms that are admissible in a court of law is a company called Page Vault. I highly recommend contacting them for one time or ongoing services to properly preserve online evidence.
If you live in one of the 36 states with laws against revenge porn, you may be able to take legal action against the website or the person who posted your photos. You’ll need to contact legal counsel to find out how the law works in your state.
If the photo that was posted against your will is a selfie, you may have another legal outlet: copyright law. It’s possible to get the photo removed from Google index if you can prove the photo is yours and you own the copyright. Competent legal counsel is essential before going this route.
Usually, the easiest tactics to remove Revenge Porn is by sending DMCA takedown requests to the websites that hosted the content. Law enforcement can also sometimes be contacted and sometimes will be helpful (although not always) and lawsuits can also be filed to get court orders and injunctions to have the material removed from websites and search engine results and to pursue the culprits for damages. Lastly, most major search engines like Bing, Yahoo, and Google also have direct forms to contact them to specifically remove revenge porn also, although this does not remove the images from the Internet at their source.
If these relief tactics don’t work, however, and content goes viral, or anonymous perpetrators are continuing to engage in the malicious conduct of spreading the images or other wrongful acts occur (like extortion), it then becomes necessary to hire legal counsel who is experienced in these matters to assist and resolve the issues. This is an are of law that I have a lot of experience with.
Don’t Let Someone’s Personal Vendetta Destroy Your Personal & Professional Life! Make The Abuse Stop by Working With An Internet Defamation Lawyer
If MyEX.com or a similar website contains materials that are false, baseless, and defamatory about you or is spreading private images of you online, revenge porn lawyers at Minc Law can fight to have it removed from the Internet. Our firm often GUARANTEES the full removal of your information, or you will receive your money back. We work to uncover the identity of malicious Internet posters so that they can be held accountable. To schedule a free, no-obligation initial consultation call (216) 373-7706 or schedule a meeting online by filling out our online contact form.
★★★★★
“Minc Law and Dan Powell worked closely with us to get defamatory material removed from social media sites. We would not have been able to get this accomplished without them. They are true professionals, and have the resources and skills to guide clients through the process to a successful resolution.”
Jen Duncan, March 4, 2022
