User:Levendowski/sandbox

"Revenge porn” is the online distribution of sexually explicit images of an individual without consent to humiliate the pictured individual.

Revenge porn is uploaded by a variety of sources, including former lovers or hackers, and is frequently distributed through amateur pornography aggregators or websites dedicated to revenge porn. Revenge porn is often accompanied by identifying personal information about the individual, including Facebook pages, e-mail addresses and full names.

Background
The origins of revenge porn can be traced to 2000. An Italian researcher, Sergio Messina, identified “ realcore pornography,” a new genre comprised of images and videos of ex-girlfriends distributed through Usenet groups. Eight years later, amateur porn aggregator XTube began receiving complaints that pornographic content had been posted without subjects’ consent. Several sites began capitalizing on the revenge porn phenomenon, either by hosting authentic user-submitted content or by staging consensual pornography to resemble revenge porn.

Revenge porn began garnering international media when Hunter Moore launched IsAnyoneUp.com in 2010. The site featured user-submitted pornography, often by ex-partners seeking to humiliate their former lovers. IsAnyoneUp was one of the first revenge porn sites that included identifying information, such the subjects’ names and social networking profiles, alongside nude and semi-nude photographs.

Revenge Porn Litigation and Legislation
Many individuals whose sexually explicit photographs were posted online without their consent, often considered "victims" of revenge porn, have sought legal remedies. Tort, privacy and copyright laws offer legal avenues for victims to remove revenge porn. Some states have laws that criminalize revenge porn.

Several well-known revenge porn websites, including IsAnyoneUp and the Texxxan, have been taken down in response to actual or threatened legal action.

Tort and Privacy Law
Recent lawsuits over revenge porn have alleged various torts, including invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private fact and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against the individuals who uploaded the images.

Forty states, including California and New York, have anti-cyberharassment laws that may be applicable to cases of revenge porn.

Copyright Law
An estimated 80% of revenge porn victims took the photographs or videos themselves. Those individuals can bring actions for copyright infringement against the person who uploaded their nude or semi-nude selfies. In most cases, victims must register their sexually explicit photographs with the Copyright Office to bring a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

Successful civil suits for copyright infringement can result in an injunction, monetary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Legislation
To date, only two states have laws expressly applicable to revenge porn: New Jersey and California.

New Jersey’s law was passed in 2004, long before the rise of revenge porn. The law prohibits the distribution of sexually explicit photographs and films by any person, “knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so,” and without the subjects’ consent. Penalties include up to five years in prison and $30,000 in fines. The law was used to prosecute Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers student who distributed webcam footage of his roommate engaging in sexual activity, as well as several men who allegedly distributed revenge porn of their ex-girlfriends.

California passed its law at the beginning of October. The law prohibits the distribution of “intimate” photographs or films taken of a victim “with the intent to cause serious emotional distress.” Penalties include up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The law protects images that were taken consensually, but only if the distributor of the image is also the photographer.

Hunter Moore, founder of the now-defunct IsAnyoneUp revenge porn site, criticized the California legislation in a YouTube statement, because the law “doesn’t protect selfies, which is the whole point of... revenge porn.” Revenge porn victim-advocates, like Cyber Civil Rights Initiative founder Dr. Holly Jacobs and law professor Mary Anne Franks, have also criticized California law for not being more protective.

Other states, including New York, Wisconsin and Florida, are also considering passing legislation to target revenge porn.

First Amendment and Anti-SLAPP
Some free speech advocates have objected to revenge porn laws on First Amendment grounds. The American Civil Liberties Union defended revenge porn as constitutionally protected speech as long as the images do not run afoul of other criminal laws, including child pornography and stalking laws. United States courts are generally reluctant to uphold legislation that restricts free speech.

Individuals who upload revenge porn, as well as websites that host it, can use states’ anti-SLAPP laws to challenge lawsuits. Anti-SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, laws allow defendants to fight back against lawsuits that are aimed at stifling lawful free speech. Twenty-five states have passed anti-SLAPP legislation. .

Communications Decency Act §230
Several recent revenge porn lawsuits have named service providers and websites as defendants alongside the individuals who uploaded the images. Most online publishers are shielded from liability for user-generated content by the the Communications Decency Act, also known as §230. The CDA also protects many website users who subscribe to or view web content from liability. Lawsuits against service providers and user-generated revenge porn websites are likely barred by §230.

Related Topics

 * Privacy Law
 * Sexting
 * Obscenity
 * IsAnyoneUp
 * Selfies