Freedom to Post or Invasion of Privacy? Analysis of U.S. Revenge Porn State Statutes

The Psychology of Nonconsensual Porn: Understanding and Addressing a Growing Form of Sexual Violence

“…Cole and colleagues’ study of NCP legislation in the United States identified the many differences and inconsistencies between state laws, including considerable divergence on definitions of consent (Cole et al, 2020). Other states limit protection to only those whose images were taken without consent, thus excluding images that were originally shared consensually and selfies (Cole et al, 2020; see also Najdowski, 2017). This writes victim-blaming into the law and fails to focus on the nature of the offense which is the breach of privacy through nonconsensual sharing .…”

“…Cole and colleagues conclude that current U.S. laws “vary drastically across states” (Cole et al, 2020, p. 11). The different framings of these provisions, such as forms of harassment or breaches of privacy, are potentially confusing to victims and criminal justice personnel (Najdowski, 2017).…”

“…The different framings of these provisions, such as forms of harassment or breaches of privacy, are potentially confusing to victims and criminal justice personnel (Najdowski, 2017). Some provisions risk blaming victims for the harms (Cole et al, 2020). This gives further legitimacy to the consistent victim-blaming shown in our review of psychology literature (e.g., Gavin & Scott, 2019), with implications for victims’ help-seeking (e.g., Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2019).…”

“…There are also considerable differences in definitions of sexual or intimate image, leading to considerable variations in the scope of the laws. Problematically, more than two thirds of statutes examined required the victim to be identifiable in the images or recordings, with some such as Illinois permitting the identification to be from information displayed in connection with the image (Cole et al, 2020). Without this caveat of connecting information, such an identification requirement considerably limits the scope of such measures and fails to recognize that being unidentifiable to a stranger does not reduce the harm.…”

“…Of further concern is that just more than half of current laws require proof of a perpetrator motive to cause harm, variously defined as including intentions to humiliate, degrade, offend, harass, intimidate, terrify, and so on (Cole et al, 2020). These motivation requirements impose a high threshold on prosecutions, with research from countries with similar provisions such as the U.K. finding that this hinders prosecutions (McGlynn et al, 2019), as well as adding a level of confusion regarding the interpretation of the different motive requirements (Franks, 2017).…”