'Revenge Porn,' State Law, and Free Speech

Abstract

The views expressed in this article are the author's own and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. Tom Buchanan, Paul Cassell, and Andrew Kloster offered helpful suggestions on an earlier version of this article. Any errors are mine alone.

Gender differences in videoed accounts of victim blaming for revenge porn for self-taken and stealth-taken sexually explicit images and videos

“…Contrary to the notion that the sharing of SEM occurs in a consensual relationship as a declaration of visual love (Larkin, 2014), oftentimes victims are not aware that images or video of their sexual activities exist until they surface as revenge porn (Bates, 2017). There is evidence that people as young as 13 years of age are habitually sending one another stealth-taken intimate images and videos, creep shots (sexualised images taken of a person in public without their knowledge) and up-skirting images (Project deSHAME, 2017).…”

A systematic review of the current knowledge regarding revenge pornography and non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit media

“…The 29 papers discussing legal components of revenge pornography/non-consensual sharing were predominantly from the U.S., discussing several challenges to enacting revenge porn legislation that is effective and that does not raise constitutional issues. For example, eight articles (seven from the U.S., one from multiple countries) discuss the issue of protection of freedom of speech/expression in developing legislation that addresses revenge pornography behaviors (Barmore, 2015;Daniels, 2014;Dawkins, 2015;Gissell, 2015;Humbach, 2014;Larkin, 2014;Matsui, 2015;Ronay, 2014). For example, both Humbach (2014) and Daniels (2014) highlight the challenges of developing revenge pornography legislation that does not impinge on First Amendment rights in the U.S.. Daniels (2014) questions whether recent amendments to legislation that deals with revenge pornography in California could face challenges in relation to the First Amendment.…”

“…With regards to the type of content, it is usually described as sexually explicit, with some authors limiting their definition to images only (e.g., Bloom, 2014;Matsui, 2015), while others extend the content to include both images (including photographs) and videos (e.g., Cannon, 2015;Cecil, 2014;Osterday, 2016). The vast Running head: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF REVENGE PORN AND NON-CONSENSUAL SHARING majority describe the behavior as posting or publication of this content to an online environment (e.g., Larkin, 2014;Matsui, 2015), although most authors are more specific in identifying that this occurs without the consent of the depicted individual (e.g., Barmore, 2015;Daniels, 2014;Salter & Crofts, 2015). The majority of authors also specify that this behavior usually occurs in the context of relationship breakdown (Bloom, 2014;Dawkins, 2015;Larkin, 2014;Matsui, 2015;Osterday, 2016;Tungate, 2014).…”

“…The vast Running head: SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF REVENGE PORN AND NON-CONSENSUAL SHARING majority describe the behavior as posting or publication of this content to an online environment (e.g., Larkin, 2014;Matsui, 2015), although most authors are more specific in identifying that this occurs without the consent of the depicted individual (e.g., Barmore, 2015;Daniels, 2014;Salter & Crofts, 2015). The majority of authors also specify that this behavior usually occurs in the context of relationship breakdown (Bloom, 2014;Dawkins, 2015;Larkin, 2014;Matsui, 2015;Osterday, 2016;Tungate, 2014). The inference from the inclusion of the relationship breakdown does begin to draw on revenge as a motivation for the posting of the material, however this is rarely made explicit within the definition, with the exception being those definitions that include the sharing being carried out by scorned expartners (Bloom, 2014;Osterday, 2016) or where the relationship breakdown is highlighted as being acrimonious (Daniels, 2014) or vicious (Salter & Crofts, 2015).…”

If i Go There Will Be Trouble, If i Stay There Will Be Double: Revenge Porn, Domestic Violence, and Family Offenses

“…193 In some rare cases, revenge porn victims have won judgments against offenders using tort liability, 194 but such victories are difficult to secure. 195 Another popular suggestion is that victims could file suit for defamation, but this claim will fail if the defendant asserts truth as a defense. 196 The truth of a photograph cannot be disputed, no matter how unflattering or offensive it may be.…”