Examine individual changes

'{{short description|Distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent}} {{globalize|date=January 2022}} {{use dmy dates|date=February 2022}} {{Engvar|date=February 2022}} {{Sex and the law}} '''Revenge porn''' is the distribution of sexually explicit images or videos of individuals without their consent.<ref name=W346>{{harvnb|Citron & Franks|2014|p=346}}</ref> The material may have been made by a partner in an intimate relationship with the knowledge and consent of the subject at the time, or it may have been made without their knowledge. The subject may have experienced sexual violence during the recording of the material, in some cases facilitated by narcotics such as “date rape” drugs which also cause a reduced sense of pain and involvement in the sexual act, dissociative effects and amnesia. The possession of the material may be used by the perpetrators to blackmail the subjects into performing other sexual acts, to coerce them into continuing a relationship or to punish them for ending one, to silence them, to damage their reputation, and/or for financial gain. In the wake of civil lawsuits and the increasing numbers of reported incidents, legislation has been passed in a number of countries and jurisdictions to outlaw the practice, though approaches have varied and been changed over the years. The practice has also been described as a form of [[psychological abuse]] and [[domestic violence]], as well as a form of [[sexual abuse]].<ref>{{cite thesis|url=http://summit.sfu.ca/item/15668|title="Stripped": An analysis of revenge porn victims' lives after victimization|first=Samantha|last=Bates|publisher=[[Simon Fraser University]]|date=2015-08-04|access-date=2016-01-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220907023224/https://summit.sfu.ca/_flysystem/fedora/sfu_migrate/15668/etd9124_SBates.pdf |archive-date=7 September 2022}}</ref> The term "revenge porn" is rejected by activists for implying the victim has done something wrong.<ref name="Guardian_2021-04-29">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/oct/19/they-said-arent-you-that-porn-star-the-woman-hunting-down-image-based-abuse|title='They said: aren't you that porn star?' The woman hunting down image-based abuse|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|date=19 October 2022|access-date=19 October 2022|author1=Bergo, Ingri|author2=Saliou, Mathilde|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221019070225/https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/oct/19/they-said-arent-you-that-porn-star-the-woman-hunting-down-image-based-abuse|archive-date=19 October 2022|url-status=live}}</ref> It most commonly refers to the uploading of sexually explicit material to the Internet to [[humiliate]] and [[intimidate]] a subject who has broken off a relationship.<ref name= W346/> The term is also often misused to describe non-revenge scenarios, including nonconsensual pornography distributed by hackers or by individuals seeking profit or notoriety.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Crookes |first1=Rebecca L. |last2=Hatcher |first2=Ruth M. |last3=Hine |first3=Benjamin |last4=Sleath |first4=Emma |last5=Walker |first5=Kate |date=13 June 2019 |title=Nonconsensual Sharing of Private Sexually Explicit Media Among University Students |url=https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/6042/1/Hine_etal_JIV_2019_Non-consensual_sharing_of_private_sexually_explicit_media_amongst_university_students.pdf |journal=[[Journal of Interpersonal Violence]] |volume=36 |issue=17–18 |pages=NP9078–NP9108 |doi=10.1177/0886260519853414 |pmid=31189425 |hdl-access=free |hdl=2381/44022 |s2cid=189812864}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Hayward & Rahn|2015}}</ref> The images are usually accompanied by sufficient information to identify the pictured individual (a process known as [[doxing]]), typically names and locations, and can include risqué comments, links to [[social media]] profiles, home addresses, and workplaces.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bazelon |first=Emily |date=25 September 2013 |title=Why Do We Tolerate Revenge Porn? |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/revenge_porn_legislation_a_new_bill_in_california_doesn_t_go_far_enough.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130925222908/http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/revenge_porn_legislation_a_new_bill_in_california_doesn_t_go_far_enough.html |archive-date=25 September 2013 |website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]}}</ref><ref name="larson">{{Cite web |last=Larson |first=Eric |date=21 October 2013 |title=It's Still Easy to Get Away With Revenge Porn |url=http://mashable.com/2013/10/21/revenge-porn |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220423161741/https://mashable.com/archive/revenge-porn |archive-date=23 April 2022 |website=[[Mashable]]}}</ref> In some cases victims are exposed to [[workplace discrimination]], [[cyber-stalking]] or physical attack. Some companies search the Internet for potential sources of bad publicity, resulting in many victims of revenge porn losing their jobs and finding themselves effectively unhirable.<ref name="Citron">{{Cite web |last=Keats Citron |first=Danielle |author-link=Danielle Citron |date=29 August 2014 |title='Revenge porn' should be a crime in U.S. |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/opinion/citron-revenge-porn/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901055619/https://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/29/opinion/citron-revenge-porn/index.html |archive-date=1 September 2022 |website=[[CNN]]}}</ref> Some academics argue that the term "revenge porn" should not be used, and instead that it should be referred to as "image-based sexual abuse."<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=McGlynn |first1=Clare |last2=Rackley |first2=Erika |date=2017 |title=Image-Based Sexual Abuse |url=http://academic.oup.com/ojls/article/37/3/534/2965256/ImageBased-Sexual-Abuse |journal=[[Oxford Journal of Legal Studies]] |language=en |volume=37 |issue=3 |pages=534–561 |doi=10.1093/ojls/gqw033 |issn=0143-6503}}</ref> Jurisdictions which have passed laws against revenge porn include Canada,<ref name="Laws_Lois">{{Cite web |date=9 December 2014 |title=Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act (S.C. 2014, c. 31) |url=http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2014_31/page-1.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220414043558/https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/annualstatutes/2014_31/page-1.html |archive-date=14 April 2022 |access-date=25 June 2015 |website=Justice Laws Website}}</ref> Germany, Italy, Israel, Singapore,<ref name="SGRVP"/> Spain,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Jurídicas |first=Noticias |title=El Tribunal Supremo considera delito difundir imágenes obtenidas con el permiso de la víctima que afectan gravemente a su intimidad · Noticias Jurídicas |url=https://noticias.juridicas.com/actualidad/noticias/14915-el-tribunal-supremo-considera-delito-difundir-imagenes-obtenidas-con-el-permiso-de-la-victima-que-afectan-gravemente-a-su-intimidad/ |access-date=2022-08-19 |website=Noticias Jurídicas |language=es}}</ref> the United Kingdom, 48/50 states of the United States—plus [[Washington, D.C.]],<ref name="cybercivilrights.org">{{Cite web |title=48 States + DC have Revenge Porn Laws |url=https://www.cybercivilrights.org/nonconsensual-pornagraphy-law/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220824101109/https://cybercivilrights.org/nonconsensual-pornography-laws/ |archive-date=24 August 2022 |access-date=7 September 2022 |website=[[Cyber Civil Rights Initiative]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news |last=Moore |first=Jack |date=19 April 2017 |title=DC man convicted under revenge porn law sentenced to 9 years |work=[[WUSA (TV)|WTOP-TV]] |url=https://wtop.com/dc/2017/04/dc-man-convicted-revenge-porn-law-sentenced-9-years/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220504013458/https://wtop.com/dc/2017/04/dc-man-convicted-revenge-porn-law-sentenced-9-years/ |archive-date=4 May 2022}}</ref> the U.S. military<ref>{{cite news|url=http://mustreadalaska.com/sweeping-changes-to-code-military-of-justice-just-went-into-effect/|title=Sweeping changes to Uniform Code of Military Justice just went into effect|first=Suzanne|last=Downing|date=5 January 2019|website=Must Read Alaska}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wearethemighty.com/news/posting-revenge-porn-is-now-illegal-under-the-ucmj|title=Posting 'Revenge Porn' is now illegal under the UCMJ|date=13 February 2018|website=We Are The Mighty}}</ref> and U.S. territories including Puerto Rico and [[Guam]].<ref>{{Cite web|last=Santiago|first=Johstean Miguel|date=2021-08-05|title=Gobernador convierte en ley que sea delito el porno venganza|trans-title=Governor signs law making revenge porn a crime|url=https://www.metro.pr/pr/noticias/2021/08/05/gobernador-venganza-pornografica2.html|access-date=2021-08-06|website=Metro|language=es}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Network|first=Pacific Daily News Staff Reports, Pacific Daily News USA TODAY|title=Revenge porn bill signed into law|url=https://www.guampdn.com/news/local/revenge-porn-bill-signed-into-law/article_07ba6935-8f2b-5a77-8433-5f37722959dd.html|access-date=2021-08-06|website=guampdn.com|language=en}}</ref> Australia has also passed a law at the Commonwealth level that commenced on 1 September 2018.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018A00096|title=Enhancing Online Safety (Non‑consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Act (2018) (Cth)|last=Parliament of Australia|date=16 August 2018|website=Australian Government Federal Register of Legislation|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Media/Pages/new-laws-to-prevent-image-based-abuse-one-step-closer.aspx|title=New laws to prevent image-based abuse one step closer|last=Porter|first=Christian|date=16 August 2018|website=Attorney General for Australia|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The Australian states and territories of [[South Australia]],<ref name=":2">{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/V/A/2013/SUMMARY%20OFFENCES%20(FILMING%20OFFENCES)%20AMENDMENT%20ACT%202013_5/2013.5.UN.PDF|title=Summary Offences (Filming Offences) Amendment Act (2013) (SA)|last=Parliament of South Australia|date=14 March 2013|website=South Australian Government Legislation Database|access-date=28 February 2019}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/V/A/2016/SUMMARY%20OFFENCES%20(FILMING%20AND%20SEXTING%20OFFENCES)%20AMENDMENT%20ACT%202016_39/2016.39.UN.PDF|title=Summary Offences (Filming and Sexting Offences) Amendment Act (2016) (SA)|last=Parliament of South Australia|date=29 September 2016|website=South Australian Government Legislation Database|access-date=28 February 2019}}</ref> [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]],<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Parliament of Victoria |date=15 October 2014 |title=Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act (2014) (Vic) |url=http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/51dea49770555ea6ca256da4001b90cd/73A4F3B93BAA3547CA257D780015AC59/$FILE/14-074a.pdfbookmarked.pdf |access-date=28 February 2019 |website=Government of Victoria Legislation Database}}</ref> [[New South Wales]],<ref name=":5">{{Cite web|url=https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/#/view/act/2017/29/full|title=Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2017) (NSW)|last=Parliament of New South Wales|date=27 June 2017|website=New South Wales Government Legislation Database|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> the [[Australian Capital Territory]],<ref name=":6">{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/View/a/2017-22/20170830-67084/PDF/2017-22.PDF|title=Crimes (Intimate Image Abuse) Amendment Act (2017) (ACT)|last=Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory|date=16 August 2017|website=A.C.T Government Legislation Database|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> [[Northern Territory|the Northern Territory]],<ref name=":7">{{Cite web|url=https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Bills/Criminal-Code-Amendment-Intimate-Images-Bill-2017?format=assented|title=Criminal Code Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2018) (NT)|last=Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory|date=9 May 2018|website=Northern Territory Government Legislation Database|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> [[Queensland]],<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/view/html/asmade/act-2019-001|title=Criminal Code (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Amendment Act (2019) (Qld)|last=Parliament of Queensland|date=21 February 2019|website=Queensland Government Legislation Register|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> [[Western Australia]],<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|url=http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/parliament/bills.nsf/BillProgressPopup?openForm&ParentUNID=DC68AED6CEC73FFB482582B90017A6C3|title=Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Bill (2018) (WA)|last=Parliament of Western Australia|date=26 February 2019|website=Parliament of Western Australia}}</ref> and [[Tasmania]],<ref name=":12">{{Cite web|url=http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/bills/pdf/5_of_2019.pdf|title=Criminal Code Amendment (Bullying) Bill (2019) (Tas)|last=Parliament of Tasmania|date=19 September 2019|website=Parliament of Tasmania|access-date=11 October 2019}}</ref> have complementary state level laws that criminalize this behaviour. Furthermore, Australia also has a [[Civil penalty|civil penalties]] scheme.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web|url=https://www.esafety.gov.au/image-based-abuse/action/civil-penalties-scheme|title=Civil penalties scheme|website=Australian Government Office of the eSafety Commissioner|access-date=6 March 2019}}</ref> ==Background== In the 1980s, ''[[Hustler (magazine)|Hustler]]'' magazine began a monthly feature of reader-submitted images of naked women called "Beaver Hunt".<ref name="artporn">{{Cite book |last=Dennis |first=Kelly |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/232980947 |title=Art/Porn : A History of Seeing and Touching |date=2009 |publisher=[[Berg Publishers|Oxford International Publishers]] |year=2009 |isbn=978-1-84788-067-3 |location=Oxford |oclc=232980947}}</ref> Beaver Hunt photographs were often accompanied by details about the woman, like her hobbies, her sexual fantasies, and sometimes her name.<ref name=artporn/> Not all of the women featured in Beaver Hunt submitted their own images and several women sued the magazine for publishing their photographs without their permission, or without verifying information on forged consent forms.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Wood v. Hustler |vol=736 |reporterF.2d= |opinion=1084 |pinpoint= |court=5th Cir. |date=1984 |url=http://leagle.com/decision/19841820736F2d1084_11634.xml/WOOD%20v.%20HUSTLER%20MAGAZINE,%20INC. |access-date= |quote= |postscript= }}</ref> Two decades later, Italian researcher [[Sergio Messina]] identified "realcore pornography", a new genre consisting of images and videos of ex-girlfriends distributed through [[Usenet]] groups.<ref name="history">{{Cite web |last=Tsoulis-Reay |first=Alexa |date=21 July 2013 |title=The Sex Issue - A Brief History of Revenge Porn |url=https://nymag.com/news/features/sex/revenge-porn-2013-7/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220712042841/https://nymag.com/news/features/sex/revenge-porn-2013-7/ |archive-date=12 July 2022 |access-date=2022-09-07 |website=[[New York (magazine)|New York Magazine]] |language=en-us}}</ref> In 2008, amateur porn aggregator [[XTube]] began receiving complaints that pornographic content had been posted without subjects' consent. Several sites began staging consensual [[pornography]] to resemble revenge porn, as well as hosting "authentic" user-submitted content.<ref name=history/><ref name=twsEconomist>{{cite news|title=Revenge porn: Misery merchants|url=https://www.economist.com/news/international/21606307-how-should-online-publication-explicit-images-without-their-subjects-consent-be|newspaper=[[The Economist]]|date=5 July 2014}}</ref> Revenge porn began garnering international media attention when [[Hunter Moore]] launched the website ''[[IsAnyoneUp]]'' in 2010.<ref name="frontier">{{Cite web |last=Garfield |first=Bob |author-link=Bob Garfield |date=2 December 2011 |title=REVENGE PORN'S LATEST FRONTIER |url=http://www.onthemedia.org/story/173718-revenge-porns-latest-frontier/transcript/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140602110953/http://www.onthemedia.org/story/173718-revenge-porns-latest-frontier/transcript |archive-date=2 June 2014 |publisher=[[On the Media]]}}</ref> The site featured user-submitted pornography,<ref name=frontier/> and was one of the first sites to adopt the model initiated by Beaver Hunt: ''IsAnyoneUp'' often included identifying information, such as the subjects' names, employers, addresses and links to social networking profiles.<ref name=frontier/> Activist [[Charlotte Laws]] was the first person to speak out against Moore and one of the first people to publicly support revenge porn victims. This prompted backlash from some of Moore's devotees, who stalked Laws and sent her death threats.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/mar/30/charlotte-laws-fight-with-internet-revenge-porn-king|title=Charlotte Laws' fight with Hunter Moore, the internet's revenge porn king|author=Carole Cadwalladr|newspaper=The Guardian|date=2014-03-30}}</ref> Laws became known around the world as the "[[Erin Brockovich]] of revenge porn"<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/us/how-the-erin-brockovich-of-revenge-porn-is-helping-victims|title=How the 'Erin Brockovich of revenge porn' is helping victims|work=Fox News|date=19 March 2014}}</ref> and she was one of the first activists to meet with legislators in an effort to get laws passed against revenge porn.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/revenge-porn-law-in-california-a-good-first-step-but-flawed-experts-say/|title="Revenge porn" law in California a good first step, but flawed, experts say|work=CBS News|author=Julia Dahl|date=3 October 2013}}</ref> In February 2015, the [[social media]] site and [[Internet forum|online bulletin board]] [[Reddit]] announced a change to its privacy policy to ban the posting of sexually explicit content without the consent of those depicted. The announcement was made after a company meeting at which the issue of "illicit pornography—pictures and video—was a burning one".<ref name=2015Reddit>{{cite news|last1=Pardon|first1=Rhett|title=Reddit to Ban Sexually Explicit Content Posted Without Consent|url=http://www.xbiz.com/news/191561|access-date=25 February 2015|publisher=XBIZ.com|date=February 24, 2015}}</ref> In March 2015, [[Twitter]] followed suit with new rules to address the posting of unauthorized content and specifically revenge porn. Starting March 11 of that year, Twitter stated it would immediately remove "any 'link to a photograph, video, or digital image of you in a state of nudity or engaged in any act of sexual conduct' that has been posted without consent."<ref name=2015TwitterChange>{{cite web|last1=Hymes|first1=Tom|title=Twitter Targets Revenge Porn with New Abusive Behavior Policies New tougher prohibitions start today.|url=http://business.avn.com/articles/technology/Twitter-Targets-Revenge-Porn-with-New-Abusive-Behavior-Policies-591209.html|website=AVN.com|publisher=Adult Video News|access-date=12 March 2015}}</ref> According to a ''[[Washington Post]]'' article, the changes were in response to growing concerns "that [Twitter] has not done enough to prevent bad behavior on its site."<ref>{{cite news|last1=Tsukayama|first1=Hayley|title=Twitter updates its rules to specifically ban 'revenge porn'|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/03/11/twitter-updates-its-rules-to-specifically-ban-revenge-porn/|access-date=12 March 2015|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=March 11, 2015}}</ref> In June 2015, [[Google]] announced it would remove links to revenge porn on request.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Golbeck|first1=Jennifer|title=Google to Remove Revenge Porn from Search Results|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/06/19/google_announces_plan_to_remove_revenge_porn_from_search_results.html|website=slate.com|date=19 June 2015|publisher=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]}}</ref> [[Microsoft]] followed suit in July.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Beauchere|first1=Jacqueline|title='Revenge porn:' Putting victims back in control|url=http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/07/22/revenge-porn-putting-victims-back-in-control/|website=blogs.microsoft.com/|publisher=[[Microsoft]]|date=2015-07-22}}</ref> Both have placed forms on-line for victims to complete.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Remove your personal information from Google |url=https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061#ts=2889054,2889099 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901052144/https://support.google.com/websearch/troubleshooter/3111061 |archive-date=1 September 2022 |website=[[Google]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Report Content to Microsoft|url=https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/getsupport?oaspworkflow=start_1.0.0.0&wfname=capsub&productkey=RevengePorn&ccsid=635737542193040502|website=support.microsoft.com|publisher=[[Microsoft]]}}</ref> Together the two organizations account for nearly 90% of the internet search market in the U.S.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Chavez|first1=Ronald|title=Microsoft joins Google in removing links to revenge porn|url=http://mashable.com/2015/07/22/microsoft-joins-google-will-remove-links-to-revenge-porn/|website=mashable.com|date=22 July 2015|publisher=[[Mashable]]}}</ref> The term "revenge porn" is controversial because those who share images without permission may be motivated by profit, notoriety, entertainment, or other goals besides revenge; and because not all visual depictions of nudity or sexual activity are pornographic.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2019/10/29/strictly-legal-revenge-porn-law-constitutional/2494999001/|title=Strictly Legal: 'Revenge porn' law is constitutional|website=Cincinnati.com|author=Jack Greiner|date=29 October 2019}}</ref> ==Advocacy== The website ''endrevengeporn.org'' was founded by [[Holly Jacobs]], a revenge porn victim, to campaign for the criminalization of revenge porn, which it considered a form of [[sexual abuse]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.endrevengeporn.org/petition/|title=End Revenge Porn: Petition|website=www.endrevengeporn.org|access-date=1 January 2015|archive-date=21 January 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150121042741/http://www.endrevengeporn.org/petition/|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="CCRI FAQ">{{cite web|title=Frequently Asked Questions|url=http://www.endrevengeporn.org/faqs/|website=.endrevengeporn.org|publisher=[[Cyber Civil Rights Initiative]]|quote=Revenge porn, n. – A form of sexual abuse that involves the distribution of nude/sexually explicit photos and/or videos of an individual without their consent. Revenge porn, sometimes called cyber-rape or nonconsensual pornography, is usually posted by a scorned ex-lover or friend, in order to seek revenge after a relationship has gone sour.}}</ref> Jacobs also founded the [[Cyber Civil Rights Initiative]] (CCRI), a nonprofit organization that seeks to challenge cyber harassment. [[Danielle Citron]], known for her discourse on cyber harassment as a civil rights issue, the vice-president of the CCRI.<ref name=":14">{{Cite web |title=CCRI Board of Directors |url=https://cybercivilrights.org/about/board-of-directors/ |access-date=2022-08-31 |website=Cyber Civil Rights Initiative |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{harvardnb|Citron|2009}}</ref> [[Mary Anne Franks]], CCRI's president and Legislative & Tech Policy Director, has been heavily involved with legislative and policy efforts to combat revenge porn.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dailydot.com/politics/mary-anne-franks-revenge-porn/|title=Meet the Krav Maga-fighting law professor behind U.S. revenge porn laws|work=The Daily Dot|date=2014-04-15}}</ref><ref name=":14" /> Dr. Laura Hilly and Kira Allmann of the [[Oxford Human Rights Hub]] have characterized revenge porn as a kind of gendered hate speech designed to silence women. An article of theirs argues that this stifling of free expression is often ignored in debates over revenge porn.<ref name=OxHRH>{{cite news|last1=Hilly|first1=Laura|last2=Allman|first2=Kira|title=Revenge porn does not only try to shame women – it tries to silence them too|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/22/revenge-porn-women-free-speech-abuse|access-date=24 June 2015|work=The Guardian}}</ref> Dr. [[Charlotte Laws]], often called "the Erin Brockovich of revenge porn", was a CCRI board member until 2016. She is perhaps the first victims' advocate and one of the first to meet with elected officials in an effort to get legislation passed against nonconsensual pornography.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/revenge-porn-law-in-california-a-good-first-step-but-flawed-experts-say/|title=Revenge Porn law in California a good first step, but flawed, experts say|website=CBS News}}</ref> [[Katie Hill (politician)|Katie Hill]], U.S. representative for California, announced in late 2019 she would advocate against revenge porn.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/28/us/politics/katie-hill-revenge-porn.html|title=The Revenge Porn Debate Reaches Washington|first=Lisa|last=Lerer|date=28 October 2019|newspaper=New York Times}}</ref> While not solely focused on revenge porn, the non-profit organization ''Without My Consent'' provided legal resources related to it and lobbies to protect the privacy and free speech rights of online harassment victims.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/magazine/mag-24lede-t.html|title=How to unmask the Internet's vilest characters|first=Emily|last=Bazelon|work=New York Times Magazine|date=2011-04-22|access-date=2016-01-28}}</ref> In 2019,''Without My Consent'' ceased operating and transferred to CCRI all of the comprehensive resources it had developed to aid victims of online abuse.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gonzalez |first=Michelle |date=2019-12-17 |title=CCRI Extends Gratitude to Without My Consent |url=https://cybercivilrights.org/ccri-extends-gratitude-to-without-my-consent/ |access-date=2022-08-31 |website=Cyber Civil Rights Initiative |language=en-US}}</ref> Since 2012, there has also been a website ''Women Against Revenge Porn'', calling itself "not an organization or a business", which has been cited as an advocacy group for people exposed in revenge porn.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smh.com.au/national/revenge-porn-the-ugly-side-of-sexting-20131122-2y1ns.html|title=Revenge porn the ugly side of sexting|first=Miles|last=Godfrey|publisher=Sydney Morning Herald|date=2013-11-23|access-date=2016-01-28}}</ref> In late 2014, Elisa D'Amico and David Bateman, partners at the law firm [[K&L Gates]], launched the Cyber Civil Rights Legal Project (CCRLP), a project offering free legal help to victims of revenge porn.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Law Firm Founds Project to Fight 'Revenge Porn'|url = https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/law-firm-founds-project-to-fight-revenge-porn|website = DealBook|access-date = 2016-01-28|first = Matthew|last = Goldstein| date=30 January 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title = BigLaw firm fights 'revenge porn' with pro bono advocacy; suit alleges copyright infringement|url = http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/biglaw_firm_fights_revenge_porn_with_pro_bono_advocacy_suit_alleges_copyrig|website = ABA Journal|access-date = 2016-01-28|first = Debra|last = Cassens Weiss}}</ref> To better facilitate the introduction of relevant legislation, some anti-revenge porn activists have called upon others in their community to use gender-neutral language more often when discussing the issue.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://socialchangenyu.com/revenge-porn-legislation-activists-and-the-lessons-from-sexual-harassment-jurisprudence-gender-neutrality-public-perceptions-and-implications/#_ftn1|title=Revenge Porn Legislation Activists and the Lessons from Sexual Harassment Jurisprudence: Gender Neutrality, Public Perceptions and Implications|first=Amy|last=Lai|publisher=NYU|year=2015|access-date=2016-01-23}}</ref> The term "revenge porn" itself has also come under fire. The CCRI for instance prefers the term "nonconsensual pornography".<ref name=CCRImission>{{cite web|last=Staff|title=About|url=http://www.endrevengeporn.org/welcome/|publisher=CCRI|access-date=27 March 2014}}</ref> In analogy with "child sexual abuse images" being the preferred term for child pornography, McGlynn and Rackley proposed "image-based sexual abuse".<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = McGlynn | first1 = Clare | last2 = Rackley | first2 = Erika | title = Not 'revenge porn', but abuse: let's call it image-based sexual abuse (blog) | journal = Inherently Brief | volume = 41 | publisher = Postgraduate Students, [[Durham University|Gender & Law at Durham (GLAD)]] via [[WordPress]]| date = 15 February 2016 | url = https://inherentlyhuman.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/not-revenge-porn-but-abuse-lets-call-it-image-based-sexual-abuse/ | ref = none }}</ref> Along with journalist [[Sarah Jeong]], they have argued that it is harmful to associate revenge porn with pornography which revolves around consent. Jeong also considers it a mistake for activists to focus on revenge porn itself as the main problem, rather than the underlying culture which leads to its subjects being socially ostracized.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Snap Judgment {{!}} Bitch Media|url = https://bitchmedia.org/article/snap-judgment-revenge-porn|website = Bitch Media|access-date = 2016-01-03}}</ref> In the [[Australian Capital Territory]], an electronic petition was started in March 2017 that called upon the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly to consider criminalizing the non-consensual disclosure of sexual images and videos.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/petition-calls-on-act-government-to-introduce-revenge-porn-laws-20170322-gv4gaj.html|title=Calls for ACT government to introduce 'revenge porn' laws|first=Michael|last=Gorey|date=23 March 2017|work=canberratimes.com.au|access-date=27 March 2017}}</ref> The A.C.T Legislative Assembly consequently passed the ''Crimes (Intimate Image Abuse) Amendment Act (2017) (ACT)''<ref name=":6"/> that criminalised the distribution, or threatened distribution, of intimate photos and videos on 16 August 2017.<ref name="auto">{{cite news|url=http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/now--a-crime-in-act-to-share-an-intimate-photo-without-consent-20170816-gxx8sa.html|title=Canberrans who publish, or threaten to publish, 'revenge porn' now face jail|first=Katie|last=Burgess|date=16 August 2017|newspaper=The Canberra Times}}</ref> According to Steven Carlson, the creator of the website Cyberbully.watch, the number of boys targeted by cyberbullying may actually be higher than reported. "Society has the false presumption that boys are always stronger, and girls are weaker", Carlson told the website Parentology,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://parentology.com/helping-girls-fight-back-against-sexual-cyberbullying/|title=Helping Girls Fight Back Against Sexual Cyberbullying|website=Parentology|author=Lauren Wellbank |date=4 September 2019}}</ref> adding many cases where boys are the victim go unreported because it goes against the societal view of boys.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cyberbully.watch/my-story/elijah.html|title=This is Elijah's story . . .|website=Cyberbully.watch}}</ref> ==Legislation== Laws banning revenge porn have been slow to emerge.<ref name= W347>{{harvnb|Citron & Franks|2014|p=347}}</ref> Contributing factors include a lack of understanding about the gravity of the problem, free speech concerns,<ref name=greenfield>{{cite news|last1=Greenfield|first1=Rebecca|title=Why Isn't Revenge Porn Illegal Everywhere?|url=http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/08/why-isnt-revenge-porn-illegal-everywhere/68758/|access-date=27 June 2015|work=The Wire (The Atlantic)|date=27 Aug 2013|archive-date=30 June 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150630173440/http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/08/why-isnt-revenge-porn-illegal-everywhere/68758/|url-status=dead}}</ref> belief that existing law provides adequate protection,<ref name=greenfield/> a lack of care, historically, for women's issues, and "misunderstandings of [[First Amendment]] doctrine" (Citron & Franks).<ref name=W347/><ref>{{cite news|last1=Citron|first1=Danielle|title=Debunking the First Amendment Myths Surrounding Revenge Porn Laws|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniellecitron/2014/04/18/debunking-the-first-amendment-myths-surrounding-revenge-porn-laws/|work=[[Forbes]]}}</ref> The [[American Civil Liberties Union]] and the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] have drawn attention to the implications for free speech if legislation is too broad.<ref>{{cite web|title='Revenge Porn' Bill Needs Changes|url=http://www.acluct.org/updates/revenge-porn-bill-needs-changes/|website=acluct.org|publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]]|date=2017-06-21}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Franks|first1=Mary Anne|title=The ACLU's Frat House Take on 'Revenge Porn'|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-franks/the-aclus-frat-house-take_b_6980146.html|website=huffingtonpost.com|publisher=[[Huffington Post]]|date=1 April 2015}}</ref><ref name="Arizona">{{cite web|last1=Mullin|first1=Joe|title=Arizona makes deal with ACLU, won't enforce bad law on "revenge porn"|url=https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/arizona-makes-deal-with-aclu-wont-enforce-bad-law-on-revenge-porn/|website=arstechnica.com|publisher=[[Ars Technica]]|year=2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/victims_are_taking_on_revenge_porn_websites_for_posting_photos_they_didnt_c|title=Victims are taking on 'revenge porn' websites for posting photos they didn't consent to|first=Lorelei|last=Laird|publisher=ABA Journal|date=2013-11-01|access-date=2016-01-28}}</ref> One concern with revenge porn laws is that they may not be tailored narrowly enough to satisfy the [[strict scrutiny]] applicable to content-based restrictions on speech. Prohibition of revenge porn may not be constitutional according to the ''[[Miller v. California]]'' decision if the porn does not categorically appeal to the prurient interest; if it is not, in itself, patently offensive; or if it has literary or political value.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Revenge porn: chivalry prevails as legislation protects damsels in distress over freedom of speech|author=Driscoll, Sarah E.|journal=Roger Williams University Law Review|date=Winter 2016|volume=21|number=1|pages=75–117}}</ref> ===Africa=== In South Africa, the Films and Publications Amendment Act, 2019 makes it a crime to distribute a private sexual photograph or film without the consent of the pictured individual and with the intent to cause them harm. The penalty is a fine of up to [[South African rand|R]]150,000 and/or up to two years' imprisonment; or double that if the victim is identifiable in the photograph or film.<ref>{{cite news |first=Masechaba |last=Sefularo |date=5 October 2019 |title=Revenge porn now criminalised and carries hefty fine or jail time |newspaper=Eyewitness News |url=https://ewn.co.za/2019/10/05/being-a-bitter-ex-could-land-you-in-trouble-with-the-law |access-date=14 November 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=3 October 2019 |title=Films and Publications Amendment Act, 2019; Act No. 11 of 2019; No. 42743 |url=https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201910/42743gon1292.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200124051306/https://www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis_document/201910/42743gon1292.pdf |archive-date=24 January 2020 |publisher=[[Government Gazette of South Africa]]}} Sections 19 (inserting section 18F in the principal act) and 27 (inserting section 24E in the principal act).</ref> ===Asia=== Since 2009, the Philippines has criminalized copying, reproducing, sharing or exhibiting sexually explicit images or videos over the Internet without written consent of the individual depicted.<ref>{{cite web | title = Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (Republic Act No. 9995) | date = 15 February 2010 | access-date = 25 June 2015 | work = The LawPhil Project | url = http://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2010/ra_9995_2010.html}}</ref> Japan passed a bill in November 2014 which made it a crime to communicate "a private sexual image of another person" without consent.<ref>{{harvnb|Matsui|2015|loc= [https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/pacrimlp24&id=305 pp. 289-319]}}{{Subscription needed|via=[[HeinOnline]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/japan-new-revenge-porn-prevention-act/|title=Japan: New Revenge Porn Prevention Act|first=Sayuri|last=Umeda|publisher=Library of Congress|date=2014-11-26|access-date=2016-01-23}}</ref> In South Korea the distribution of revenge porn is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or by a fine of up to 5 million [[South Korean won]]. If the subject is filmed illicitly the penalty is up to ten years in prison or a fine of up to 10 million won ($8,900; £6,900). The use of [[hidden camera]]s for illicitly filming people, known as "[[molka]]",<ref>{{cite news |last1=Kim |first1=Min-wook |title=Businesses fight against spycams |url=http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3049781 |access-date=1 April 2019 |work=Korea JoongAng Daily |date=26 June 2018}}</ref> is widespread in the country and in 2018 more than 6,000 incidents of spy-cam porn were being reported to the police annually, with only 2% of reported cases leading to a prison sentence. The website Sora.net specialised in the publishing of spy-cam porn until it was banned in 2016 following a campaign against it. Some of those depicted had committed suicide. In May 2018, ten thousand women demonstrated in Seoul demanding increased official action against digital sex crime. In October 2018 a petition of over 200,000 signatories called for increased punishment for the possession of revenge porn, regardless of whether it had been distributed.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44615303|title=South Korea revenge porn: Sora owner arrested|work=BBC News|date=26 June 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|newspaper=Korea JoongAng Daily|url=http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3048609|title=A revolution against revenge porn|date=28 May 2018|author=Yang Sung-Hee}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45040968|title=South Korea's spy cam porn epidemic|work=BBC News|date=3 August 2018|author=Laura Bicker}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3054060|title=Public criticizes revenge porn law|newspaper=Korea JoongAng Daily|date=10 October 2018}}</ref> ====Israel==== Israel responded quickly to public pressure in January 2014 and passed a law making sharing sexually explicit videos without the consent of the pictured individual punishable by up to five years in prison.<ref name="timesofisrael.com">{{cite news | author = Yaakov, Yifa | url = http://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-law-labels-revenge-porn-a-sex-crime|title= Israeli Law Makes Revenge Porn a Sex Crime | work = The Times of Israel | date = 6 January 2014}}</ref> After Israel's bill was passed, it was widely predicted that nearby countries such as Egypt, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia would not introduce similar bills as they have been slow to adopt legislation against sexual harassment in general.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/sexual-harassment-made-crime-egypt-201465172339220160.html|title=Sexual harassment made a crime in Egypt|publisher=Al Jazeera|date=2014-06-06|access-date=2016-01-23}}</ref> However, some commentators have suggested that victims could find recourse in existing laws against pornography, indecency, defamation and invasion of privacy.<ref>{{cite journal | author = Ajbaili, Mustapha | date = 10 January 2014 | title = Banning 'Revenge Porn:' Will Arabs follow Israel's lead? | journal = Al Arabiya News | access-date = 25 June 2015 | url = http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2014/01/10/Banning-Revenge-Porn-Will-Arabs-follow-Israel-s-lead-.html}}</ref> ====Singapore==== Singapore passed the Criminal Law Reform Act on 6 May 2019, which includes the criminalisation of revenge porn. Penalties include a jail term of up to five years with fines and caning as a sentencing option. If the crime is committed against a victim under 14 years of age, a mandatory jail term will be imposed.<ref name="SGRVP">{{cite web |title=Criminal Law Reform Bill: A look at key changes in the Penal Code |url=https://www.todayonline.com/singapore/criminal-law-reform-bill-look-key-changes-penal-code |website=Today |access-date=13 June 2019 |date=6 May 2019}}</ref> The Act took effect on 1 January 2020.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Ng |first1=Charmaine |title=Watch that cigarette butt and BBQ embers - firestarters to feel more heat from the law from Jan 1 |url=https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/watch-that-cigarette-butt-and-bbq-embers-firestarters-to-feel-more-heat-from |website=The Straits Times |access-date=31 December 2019 |date=27 December 2019}}</ref> ===Australia === Sharing sexual images or videos without consent is unlawful under three different, but parallel, types of law in Australia; the [[Civil law (common law)|Civil Law]], the [[Criminal law|Criminal Law]], and a [[Civil penalty|Civil Penalties]] scheme. Under the Civil Law, the [[Supreme Court of Western Australia]] decision in the case of ''Wilson v Ferguson'', delivered on 16 January 2015, is specific precedent that establishes that the non-consensual publication of sexual images or videos on the internet is unlawful.<ref name=":10">{{cite AustLII|WASC|15|2015|litigants=Wilson v Ferguson |date=16 January 2015 |courtname=auto}}</ref> In that case, a defendant shared sexual images and videos of the plaintiff on social media. The Court decided that the publication of “''explicit images of a former partner which had been confidentially shared between the sexual partners during their relationship''” constituted a breach of an equitable obligation of confidence.<ref name=":10"/> The Court granted an injunction prohibiting further publication and awarded equitable compensation to the plaintiff. The defendant was found liable for A$48,404 in damages, plus costs.<ref name=":10"/> This case was successfully argued on grounds previously established by the case of ''Giller v Procopets'', which was argued on the equity of [[breach of confidence]] and [[tort]] grounds.<ref>{{cite AustLII|VSCA|236|2008|litigants=Giller v Procopets |date=10 December 2008 |courtname=auto}}.</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Clark |first=Peter A. P. |title=A STATUTORY RIGHT OF PRIVACY |url=https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Righttosueforseriousinvasionofpersonalprivacy-issuespaper/69%20Peter%20A%20P%20Clarke.PDF |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140212091609/https://www.ag.gov.au/Consultations/Documents/Righttosueforseriousinvasionofpersonalprivacy-issuespaper/69%20Peter%20A%20P%20Clarke.PDF |archive-date=12 February 2014 |website=[[Attorney-General of Australia]]}}</ref> Under the [[Criminal law of Australia|Criminal Law]], the Parliaments in the Australian States and Territories of [[South Australia]], [[Victoria (Australia)|Victoria]], [[New South Wales]], the [[Australian Capital Territory]], the [[Northern Territory]], [[Queensland]], [[Western Australia]], and [[Tasmania]], have all passed laws that amend the relevant statutory [[criminal law]] to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of sexual images or videos. Furthermore, the [[Parliament of Australia]] has also passed a law that amends the Commonwealth statutory criminal law (which operates in parallel to State and Territory criminal law) to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of sexual images or videos. Most jurisdictions provide for higher sentences where the image that is shared is of a child. The particular law in each of these jurisdictions is described below, in chronological order of their enactment. In March 2013, the [[Parliament of South Australia]] passed the ''Summary Offences (Filming Offences) Amendment Act (2013) (SA)'' that specifically created a criminal offence for distributing an invasive image or video without consent,<ref name=":2"/> which commenced on 10 May 2013.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/degrading-video-of-craigmore-high-school-student-assault-leads-to-tough-new-laws/news-story/9b354c323f78edc942fc1665c8e88a2c?sv=ee9f4df4e490dbecd5f98ea062a7aa2e&nk=dfb19b4e73450347cffba3b08c987ecd-1551731560|title=New SA law means putting up degrading images on Facebook or YouTube can lead to jail|last=Crouch|first=Brad|date=10 May 2013|work=The Advertiser|access-date=28 February 2019}}</ref> The distribution of an invasive image offence is contained in ''s. 26C'' of the ''Summary Offences Act (1953) (SA)'', and the maximum penalty is A$10,000 or imprisonment for 2 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_act/soa1953189/s26c.html|title=s. 26C of the Summary Offences Act (1953) (SA)|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=28 February 2019}}</ref> In September 2016, the [[Parliament of South Australia]] further passed the ''Summary Offences (Filming and Sexting Offences) Amendment Act (2016)'' to create a criminal offence for threatening to distribute an invasive image or video,<ref name=":3"/> which commenced on 28 October 2018.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Plater|first=David|date=2016|title='Setting the boundaries of acceptable behaviour'? South Australia's latest legislative response to revenge pornography|url=https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/105621/3/hdl_105621.pdf|journal=UniSA Student Law Review|volume=2|pages=77–95|doi=10.21913/USLRunisaslr.v2i0.1359|doi-access=free}}</ref> The threatening to distribute offence is contained in ''s. 26DA'' of the ''Summary Offences Act (1953) (SA)'', and the maximum penalty is A$5,000 or imprisonment for 1 year.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/sa/consol_act/soa1953189/s26da.html|title=s. 26DA Summary Offences Act (1953) (SA)|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> On 15 October 2014, the [[Parliament of Victoria]] passed the ''Crimes Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act (2014) (Vic)'' that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, a sexual image or video without consent,<ref name=":4"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cla.asn.au/News/victoria-passes-sexting-laws/|title=Victoria passes 'sexting' laws|last=Michie|first=Rhys|date=16 October 2014|website=Civil Liberties Australia|access-date=28 February 2019}}</ref> which commenced on 3 November 2014 (and was repealed on 6 September 2022).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vic.gov.au/news/sexting.html|title=Sexting|last=Victorian Government|date=3 November 2014|website=Victorian Government Latest News|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141117122301/https://www.vic.gov.au/news/sexting.html|archive-date=17 November 2014|access-date=28 February 2019}}</ref> The distribution of an intimate image offence was contained in ''s. 41DA'' of the ''Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic)'', and the maximum penalty was imprisonment for 2 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/s41da.html|title=s. 41DA Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic)|date=3 November 2014|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence was contained in ''s. 41DB'' of the ''Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic)'', and the maximum penalty was imprisonment for 1 year.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdb/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/s41db.html|title=s. 41DB Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic)|date=3 November 2014|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> On 30 August 2022, the [[Parliament of Victoria]] further passed the ''Justice Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Act (2022) (Vic)''<ref>{{Cite web |title=Justice Legislation Amendment (Sexual Offences and Other Matters) Bill (2022) |url=https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/justice-legislation-amendment-sexual-offences-and-other-matters-bill-2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220831101429/https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/justice-legislation-amendment-sexual-offences-and-other-matters-bill-2022 |archive-date=31 August 2022 |website=Government of Victoria Legislation Database |publisher=[[Parliament of Victoria]]}}</ref> that amends the ''Summary Offences Act (1966) (Vic)'', (which will commence on 30 June 2023, unless proclaimed earlier).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Parliament of Victoria |title=Victorian Legislation Register |url=https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/justice-legislation-amendment-sexual-offences-and-other-matters-bill-2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220830235916/https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/justice-legislation-amendment-sexual-offences-and-other-matters-bill-2022 |archive-date=7 September 2022 |access-date=7 September 2022}}</ref> The amendment relocates the criminal offence of distributing an intimate image to ''s. 53S'' of the ''Crimes Act (1958) (Vic),'' and the offence of threatening to distribute an intimate image to ''s. 53T'' of the ''Crimes Act (1958) (Vic)''. The maximum penalty for either offence is imprisonment for 3 years. This Act also creates a specific criminal offence for producing an intimate image without consent. The producing an intimate image offence will be contained in ''s. 53R'' of the ''Crimes Act (1958) (Vic)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years. Furthermore, this Act will create a disposal order scheme. The intimate image disposal order will be contained in ''s. 53Z of the Crimes Act (1958) (Vic).'' On 21 June 2017, the [[Parliament of New South Wales]] passed the ''Crimes Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2017) (NSW)'' that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, or threatening to record, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video,<ref name=":5"/> which commenced on 28 August 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/revenge-porn-now-a-crime-in-nsw-20170825-gy4c9d.html|title=Revenge porn now a crime in NSW|date=25 August 2017|work=The Sydney Morning Herald|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in ''s. 91Q'' of the ''Crimes Act (1900) (NSW)'', and the maximum penalty is an A$11,000 fine, or imprisonment for 3 years, or both.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91q.html|title=s. 91Q Crimes Act (1900) (NSW)|date=28 August 2017|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The threatening to distribute, or threatening to record an intimate image offences, are contained in ''s. 91R'' of the ''Crimes Act (1900) (NSW)'', and the maximum penalty for either offences is an A$11,000 fine, or imprisonment for 3 years, or both.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91r.html|title=s. 91R Crimes Act (1900) (NSW)|date=28 August 2017|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in ''s. 91S'' of the ''Crimes Act (1900) (NSW)'', and the maximum penalty is an A$5,500 fine, or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s91s.html|title=s. 91S Crimes Act (1900) (NSW)|date=28 August 2019|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> On 16 August 2017, the [[Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly|Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory]] passed the ''Crimes (Intimate Image Abuse) Amendment Act (2017) (ACT)'' that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, or threatening to capture, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video,<ref name=":6"/> which commenced on 30 August 2017.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/2017-22/|title=Australian Capital Territory Government Legislation Register|date=29 August 2017|website=Australian Capital Territory Government Legislation Register|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in ''s. 72C'' of the ''Crimes Act (1900) (ACT)'', and the maximum penalty is A$45,000 or imprisonment for 3 years, or both.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s72c.html|title=s. 72C Crimes Act (1900) (ACT)|date=30 August 2017|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The threatening to distribute, or threatening to capture, an intimate image offences are contained in ''s. 72E'' of the ''Crimes Act (1900) (ACT)'', and the maximum penalty is A$45,000 or imprisonment for 3 years, or both.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s72e.html|title=s. 72E Crimes Act (1900) (ACT)|date=30 August 2017|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in ''s. 72H'' of the ''Crimes Act (1900) (ACT)'', and the maximum penalty is an A$30,000 fine, or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/act/consol_act/ca190082/s72h.html|title=s. 72H Crimes Act (1900) (ACT)|date=30 August 2017|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> On 22 March 2018, the [[Northern Territory Legislative Assembly|Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory]] passed the ''Criminal Code Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2018) (NT)'' that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video,<ref name=":7"/> which commenced on 9 May 2018.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Bills/Criminal-Code-Amendment-Intimate-Images-Bill-2017?format=assented|title=Northern Territory Government Legislation Database|date=9 May 2018|website=Northern Territory Government Legislation Database|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in ''s. 208AB'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nt/consol_act/cca1983115/sch1.html|title=s. 208AB Criminal Code (1983) (NT)|date=9 May 2018|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in ''s. 208AC'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nt/consol_act/cca1983115/sch1.html|title=s. 208AC Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT)|date=9 May 2018|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in ''s. 208AE'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nt/consol_act/cca1983115/sch1.html|title=s. 208AE Criminal Code Act (1983) (NT)|date=9 May 2018|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> On 16 August 2018, the [[Parliament of Australia|Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia]] passed the ''Enhancing Online Safety (Non‑consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Act (2018) (Cth)'' that created specific criminal offences (that operates in parallel to State and Territory criminal law) for distributing, or threatening to distribute, a sexual image or video without consent,<ref name=":0"/> which commenced on 1 September 2018.<ref name=":1"/> The distribution of a private sexual image offence is contained in ''s. 474.17A'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1995) (Cth)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 5 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html|title=s. 474.17A Criminal Code Act (1995) (Cth)|date=1 September 2018|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> On 13 February 2019, the [[Parliament of Queensland]] passed the ''Criminal Code (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Amendment Act (2019) (Qld)'' that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video,<ref name=":8"/> which commenced on 21 February 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.qld.gov.au/law/crime-and-police/types-of-crime/naked-pics|title=Sharing intimate images without consent|date=21 February 2019|website=Queensland Government Legislation Database|access-date=17 April 2019}}</ref> The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in ''s. 223'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s223.html|title=s. 223 Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld)|date=21 February 2019|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in ''s. 229A'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s229a.html|title=s. 229A Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld)|date=21 February 2019|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=5 March 2019}}</ref> The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in ''s. 229AA'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/cc189994/s229aa.html|title=s. 229AA Criminal Code Act (1899) (Qld)|date=21 February 2019|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=5 March 2019}}</ref> On 19 February 2019, the [[Parliament of Western Australia]] passed the ''Criminal Law Amendment (Intimate Images) Act (2018) (WA)'' that created specific criminal offences for distributing, or threatening to distribute, an intimate image or video without consent, and provided for Rectification Orders that empower a Court to order the removal and destruction of the intimate image or video,<ref name=":9"/> which commenced on 15 April 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://department.justice.wa.gov.au/I/intimate-images-law_print.aspx|title=Western Australia's New Intimate Image Laws|date=19 February 2019|website=Government of Western Australia Department of Justice|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> The distribution of an intimate image offence is contained in ''s. 221BD of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ccaca1913252/notes.html#appendixb|title=s. 221BD of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA)|date=15 April 2019|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=17 April 2019}}</ref> The threatening to distribute an intimate image offence is contained in ''s. 338 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ccaca1913252/notes.html#appendixb|title=s. 338 of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA)|date=15 April 2019|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=17 April 2019}}</ref> The contravention of a Rectification Order offence is contained in ''s. 221BE of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA)'', and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 1 year and an A$12,000 fine.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/wa/consol_act/ccaca1913252/notes.html#appendixb|title=s. 221BE of the Criminal Code Act Compilation Act (1913) (WA)|date=15 April 2019|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=17 April 2019}}</ref> On 19 September 2019, the [[Parliament of Tasmania]] passed the ''Criminal Code Amendment (Bullying) Act (2019) (Tas)'' that extended the criminal offence of stalking to include distributing an offensive image or video,<ref name=":12"/> which commenced on 8 September 2019.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.legislation.tas.gov.au/view/whole/html/inforce/current/act-2019-034|title=Criminal Code Amendment (Bullying) Act 2019|date=8 October 2019|website=Tasmanian Register of Consolidated Legislation|access-date=11 October 2019}}</ref> The distribution of an offensive image offence is contained in ''s. 192(1)'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1924) (Tas)'', and the offence is a serious indictable crime that can only be tried on indictment in the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cca1924115/sch1.html|title=s. 192 (1) Criminal Code Act (1924) (Tas)|date=8 October 2019|website=Australian Legal Information Institute|access-date=11 October 2019}}</ref> The threat offence is contained in ''s. 192(1)(ea)'' of the ''Criminal Code Act (1924) (Tas)'', and the offence is a serious indictable crime that can only be tried on indictment in the Supreme Court.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/consol_act/cca1924115/sch1.html|title=Criminal Code Act (1924) (Tas)|date=8 October 2019|website=Australian Legal Information Institute|access-date=11 October 2019}}</ref> Under the [[Civil penalty|civil penalties]] scheme, Australians can report the posting, or threatened posting, of sexual images and videos without consent, to the Australian Government Office of the eSafety Commissioner. The eSafety Commissioner is empowered to receive and investigate complaints, issue take-down notices, and enforce civil penalties against individuals and corporations who fail to comply.<ref name=":11"/> In July 2015, the Australian Government established the Office of the eSafety Commissioner.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.esafety.gov.au/|title=Australian Government Office of the eSafety Commissioner Homepage|website=Australian Government Office of the eSafety Commissioner|access-date=6 March 2019}}</ref> In October 2017, the Office of the eSafety Commissioner launched the Image Based Abuse online reporting portal, which enables Australians to report non-consensually shared sexual images and videos that had been posted to social media, or websites, and enables the eSafety Commissioner to seek their removal.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://esafety.gov.au/about-the-office/newsroom/media-releases/online-portal-helps-australians-impacted-by-image-based-abuse|title=Online portal helps Australians impacted by image-based abuse|website=Australian Government Office of the eSafety Commissioner|access-date=6 March 2019}}</ref> On 16 August 2018, the [[Parliament of Australia]] passed ''Enhancing Online Safety (Non‑consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Act (2018) (Cth)'' that establishes a [[Civil penalty|civil penalties]] scheme.<ref name=":0"/><ref name=":11"/> Under this law, the eSafety Commissioner is empowered to investigate a complaint, or an objection, regarding the non-consensual sharing of intimate images or videos on social media, by email or SMS/MMS, on websites, or peer-to-peer file-sharing services.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eosa2015220/s19c.html|title=s. 19C Enhancing Online Safety Act (2015) (Cth)|date=1 September 2018|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=6 March 2019}}</ref> Furthermore, under this law, a person who non-consensually posts, or threatens to post, an intimate image or video may be liable for a [[civil penalty]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eosa2015220/s44d.html|title=s. 44A Enhancing Online Safety Act (2015) (Cth)|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=1 March 2019}}</ref> This law also empowers the eSafety Commissioner to issue removal notices requiring providers of a social media service, a relevant electronic service, or a designated internet service, to remove the intimate image from the service.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eosa2015220/s44d.html|title=s. 44A Enhancing Online Safety Act (2015) (Cth)|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=6 March 2019}}</ref> Similar powers can be enforced against end-users,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eosa2015220/s44e.html|title=s. 44E Enhancing Online Safety Act (2015) (Cth)|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=6 March 2019}}</ref> and hosting service providers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/cth/consol_act/eosa2015220/s44f.html|title=s. 44F Enhancing Online Safety Act (2015) (Cth)|website=Australasian Legal Information Institute|access-date=6 March 2019}}</ref> [[Civil penalty|Civil penalties]] for individuals are up to a maximum of A$105,000 and for corporations are up to a maximum of A$525,000.<ref name=":1"/> ===North America=== In 2014, with the passage of the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, Canada criminalized the "non-consensual distribution of intimate images" that were made under a "reasonable [[expectation of privacy]]".<ref name=Laws_Lois/> ====United States ==== [[Tort]], [[Privacy law|privacy]], [[copyright]], and criminal laws offer remedies against people who submit revenge porn.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hartzog |first=Woodrow |date=10 May 2013 |title=How to Fight Revenge Porn |url=http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/05/how-fight-revenge-porn |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130623002418/http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/05/how-fight-revenge-porn |archive-date=23 June 2013 |website=[[Stanford Center for Internet and Society]] |publisher=[[The Atlantic]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Barry |first=Doug |date=7 April 2013 |title=A New Bill in Florida Would Make Non-Consensual 'Revenge Porn' a Felony |url=https://jezebel.com/5993942/a-new-bill-in-florida-would-make-non-consensual-revenge-porn-a-felony |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180616063408/https://jezebel.com/5993942/a-new-bill-in-florida-would-make-non-consensual-revenge-porn-a-felony |archive-date=16 June 2018 |website=[[Jezebel (website)|Jezebel]] |language=en-us}}</ref> 48 states have laws against revenge porn as of July 2021.<ref name="cybercivilrights.org" /> For example, New Jersey law prohibits both the capture and 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.{{Cite NJSA|title=2C|chapter=14|section=9|subsection=b|citeonly=true}} The law was used to prosecute [[Dharun Ravi]], the [[Rutgers University|Rutgers]] student who distributed webcam footage of his roommate Tyler Clementi engaging in sexual activity, after which [[Suicide of Tyler Clementi|Clementi killed himself]].<ref>{{Cite news |last1=DeMarco |first1=Megan |last2=Friedman |first2=Alexi |date=21 May 2012 |title=Live blog: Dharun Ravi sentenced to 30 days in jail |language=en |agency=[[The Star-Ledger]] |url=https://www.nj.com/news/2012/05/dharun_ravi_sentenced_for_bias.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220809021543/https://www.nj.com/news/2012/05/dharun_ravi_sentenced_for_bias.html |archive-date=9 August 2022}}</ref> The law has also been used to prosecute several men who allegedly distributed revenge porn of their ex-girlfriends.<ref>{{Cite web |last=O'Connor |first=Maureen |date=29 August 2013 |title=The Crusading Sisterhood of Revenge-Porn Victims |url=https://www.thecut.com/2013/08/crusading-sisterhood-of-revenge-porn-victims.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220105125515/https://www.thecut.com/2013/08/crusading-sisterhood-of-revenge-porn-victims.html |archive-date=22 June 2022 |website=[[New York (magazine)|New York Magazine]] |language=en-us}}</ref> [[Mary Anne Franks]], a law professor and constitutional scholar who drafted the model legislation and advised legislators in the majority of the above states, emphasizes that many of these laws are still deeply flawed.<ref name= Huff4>{{cite web|last1=Franks|first1=Mary Anne|title=How to Defeat 'Revenge Porn': First, Recognize It's About Privacy, Not Revenge|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-franks/how-to-defeat-revenge-porn_b_7624900.html|website=huffingtonpost.com|date=22 June 2015 |publisher=[[Huffington Post]]}}</ref> Representatives from the Department of Justice, California's Office of the Attorney General, 50 major technology companies, victim advocates, and legislative and law enforcement leaders joined in 2015 to form a Cyber Exploitation Working Group, and have announced the creation of a working hub "to combat so-called cyber exploitation – the practice of anonymously posting explicit photographs of others online, often to extort money from the victims."<ref>{{Cite web|title = California teams with tech firms to fight cyber exploitation|url = http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-1015-cyber-exploitation-20151015-story.html|website = [[Los Angeles Times]]|access-date = 2015-10-20|date = 2015-10-15|last = [[Associated Press]]}}</ref> As of October 1, 2022, a new section of the [[United States Code|US Federal Code]], {{UnitedStatesCode|15|6851}} ''Civil action relating to disclosure of intimate images'', went into effect. This was passed via Section 1309 of the [[Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022]] and amended the [[Violence Against Women Act]], allowing victims of revenge porn to file [[Lawsuit|civil suits]] against those who released the materials.<ref name="usc 6851">{{UnitedStatesCode|15|6851}} [https://web.archive.org/web/20220522215416/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/6851 Archived]</ref><ref name="6851 passage">{{USBill|117|HR|2471}} Section 1309, [https://web.archive.org/web/20220831024757/https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr2471/BILLS-117hr2471enr.pdf Archived]</ref> Victims may sue for up to US$150,000 in [[actual damages]] as well as [[legal fees]]; restraining orders and injunctions may also be issued to temporarily or permanently halt any further distribution or disclosure.<ref name="tenn bar 2022">{{cite journal |last1=Day |first1=John |title=A New Arrow in the Quiver to Fight Revenge Porn |journal=Tennessee Bar Journal |date=26 April 2022 |volume=58 |issue=3 |url=https://www.tba.org/?pg=TennesseeBarJournal&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=12618&pubIssueItemID=50468 |access-date=7 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220907014808/https://www.tba.org/?pg=TennesseeBarJournal&pubAction=viewIssue&pubIssueID=12618&pubIssueItemID=50468 |archive-date=7 September 2022 }}</ref> It is the first Federal law concerning revenge porn and helps address the patchwork of state laws in effect at the time of its passage.<ref name="cong research 1309">{{cite web |last1=Killion |first1=Victoria L. |title=Legal Sidebar: Federal Civil Action for Disclosure of Intimate Images: Free Speech Considerations LSB10723 |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10723 |publisher=[[Congressional Research Service]] |access-date=7 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220811235147/https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10723 |archive-date=11 August 2022 |date=1 April 2022}}</ref> The burden of bringing such a suit is still on the victim and the code does not formally criminalize the release of revenge porn. Communications platforms, including websites, would be liable if they solicited such material or if they deal predominantly in revenge porn.<ref name="regreview 2022">{{cite web |last1=McKeen |first1=Katherine |title=Curbing the Pandemic of Cyber Sexual Abuse |url=https://www.theregreview.org/2022/03/30/mckeen-curbing-the-pandemic-of-cyber-sexual-abuse/ |website=[[The Regulatory Review]] |publisher=[[University of Pennsylvania Law School]] |access-date=7 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220525041331/https://www.theregreview.org/2022/03/30/mckeen-curbing-the-pandemic-of-cyber-sexual-abuse/ |archive-date=25 May 2022 |date=30 March 2022}}</ref> Importantly, the legal code includes specific wording which holds that a victim's allowance of such materials to be created and any instances where the victim shared that material with specific individuals do not imply wholesale consent to share the material with any other individuals, two commonly anticipated defenses which defendants may raise.<ref name="tenn bar 2022"/><ref name="usc 6851"/> Observers have also noted the shame which may make many victims reluctant to report or pursue such investigations. While victims of sexual abuse can have their identities kept out of court proceedings, which will only refer to them as [[John Doe|Jane Doe]] or [[John Doe]], few such safeguards exist for victims of revenge porn. Depending on jurisdiction, images in court cases may be entered as evidence and become publicly viewable. Suggestions have been made to revise evidentiary laws to allow anonymization of plaintiffs and [[de-identification]] of images entered as evidence.<ref name="sfchronicle laws">{{cite web |last1=Kopan |first1=Tal |last2=Cassidy |first2=Megan |title=Should revenge porn be a federal crime? Here's what the 190 Bay Area cases reveal |url=https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/revenge-porn-law-17143216.php |publisher=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] |access-date=7 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220615173718/https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/revenge-porn-law-17143216.php |archive-date=15 June 2022 |date=3 May 2022}}</ref> {{UnitedStatesCode|15|6851}} specifically allowed for injunctions to preserve plaintiff anonymity when filing civil suits in Federal court.<ref name="usc 6851"/> ===== Criminal prosecutions ===== Several well-known revenge porn websites, including ''IsAnyoneUp'' and the ''Texxxan'', have been taken down in response to actual or threatened legal action.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Goode |first=Erica |date=24 September 2013 |title=Victims Push Laws to End Online Revenge Posts |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/victims-push-laws-to-end-online-revenge-posts.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901064909/https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/victims-push-laws-to-end-online-revenge-posts.html |archive-date=1 September 2022 |website=[[The New York Times]] |language=en-US}}</ref> The former was investigated by the FBI after anti-revenge porn activist [[Charlotte Laws]] uncovered a hacking scheme associated with the website. Indictments for fifteen felonies were handed down under the [[Computer Fraud and Abuse Act]] in January 2014 for the site owner and his accomplices, and the trial was initially set to begin in November 2014 in Los Angeles.<ref name=2014FBITime>{{cite news|last=Roy|first=Jessica|title=Revenge-Porn King Hunter Moore Indicted on Federal Charges|url=http://time.com/1703/revenge-porn-king-hunter-moore-indicted-by-fbi/|publisher=Time|access-date=19 April 2014}}</ref> [[Hunter Moore]], the owner of ''IsAnyoneUp'' pleaded guilty to hacking and identity theft in early 2015.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/revenge-porn-kingpin-hunter-moore-pleads-guilty-faces-jail-n313061|title=Revenge Porn Kingpin Hunter Moore Pleads Guilty, Faces Jail|work=NBC News}}</ref> Moore was sentenced to two and a half years in prison on 2 December 2015.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/27/is-this-the-end-of-revenge-porn.html|title=Is This the End of Revenge Porn?|work=The Daily Beast|date=27 February 2015 |last1=Moosa |first1=Tauriq }}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/03/revenge-porn-purveyor-hunter-moore-is-sentenced-to-prison/|title=Revenge porn purveyor Hunter Moore is sentenced to prison|first=Abby|last=Ohlheiser|newspaper=The Washington Post|date=2015-12-03|access-date=2016-01-23}}</ref> By May 2017, Moore was out of prison.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://substreammagazine.com/2017/05/hunter-moore-returns/|title=Is Anyone Up? Founder Hunter Moore is back online, making music and writing a book|website=Substream Magazine|date=15 May 2017 }}</ref> In December 2013, California Attorney General [[Kamala Harris]] charged Kevin Bollaert, who ran the revenge porn website ''UGotPosted'', with 31 felony counts, including [[extortion]] and [[identity theft]].<ref>{{Cite web |date=10 December 2013 |title=Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Arrest of Revenge Porn Website Operator |url=https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-arrest-revenge-porn-website-operator |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220607002002/https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-announces-arrest-revenge-porn-website-operator |archive-date=7 June 2022 |website=[[Attorney General of California]]}}</ref> In March 2014, because the victim was under eighteen years old in the photos, a court in Ohio awarded damages of $385,000 against Bollaert. In April 2015 Bollaert was sentenced to 18 years in prison.<ref name="LAtimes_ 2015-04-03">{{Cite news | title = 'Revenge porn' website operator sentenced to 18 years | last = Perry | first = Tony | work = [[Los Angeles Times]] | date = 3 April 2015 | access-date = 2015-04-04 | url = http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-revenge-porn-sentenced-20150403-story.html }}</ref> "Sitting behind a computer, committing what is essentially a cowardly and criminal act, will not shield predators from the law or jail", said Attorney General Harris following the verdict.<ref name="LAtimes_ 2015-04-03"/> Also in California, a man named Noe Iniguez was given jail time for posting a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend on her employer's [[Facebook]] page.<ref name="BBC_30307657">{{Cite news | title = 'Revenge porn' Facebook post leads to jail sentence | work = [[BBC News]] | date = 3 December 2014 | access-date = 2015-04-04 | url = https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30307657 }}</ref> Casey Meyering, the operator of revenge porn website ''WinByState'', was arrested<ref>{{cite web|url=http://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/revenge-porn-website-operator-sentenced-to-years/article_fd4ea4fe-16c7-517c-a763-115e92f66cdf.html|title='Revenge porn' website operator sentenced to 3 years|author=Sean Scully|work=Napa Valley Register}}</ref> in Oklahoma in 2014 and extradited to Napa County. Meyering's website invited users to submit nude photos of ex-girlfriends and other women, with the photos categorized by state. He would then make the women featured on his website pay $250 to have their photos taken down. There were about 400 images of California women on the website, including at least one in Napa Valley, where California Attorney General [[Kamala Harris]] had filed the case. After originally pleading not guilty, on 8 May 2015, the 28-year-old man pleaded no contest to one count of [[extortion]], three counts of attempted extortion, and one count of [[conspiracy (criminal)|conspiracy]]. He was sentenced to three years' imprisonment as of early June 2015. =====Tort and privacy law===== States without specific laws about revenge porn have seen lawsuits alleging [[invasion of privacy]], [[Privacy laws of the United States|public disclosure of private fact]] and [[intentional infliction of emotional distress]] against the individuals who uploaded the images.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Jacobs v. Seay |vol= |reporter= |opinion=13-1362 6CA0 |pinpoint= |court=Fl. Apr. |date=Apr. 18, 2013 |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/138909420/Revenge-Porn-Complaint-Holly-Jacobs-vs-Ryan-Seay |access-date= |quote= |postscript= }}</ref> Forty states, including California, New Jersey,<ref>{{Cite web |title=New Jersey Revenge Porn Lawyers |url=https://www.lawdss.com/new-jersey-revenge-porn |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220901141310/https://www.lawdss.com/new-jersey-revenge-porn |archive-date=1 September 2022 |website=Daniel Szalkiewicz & Associates, P.C.}}</ref> and New York,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Daniel Szalkiewicz & Associates, P.C. |title=NYC Admin Code 10-180, Unlawful disclosure of an intimate image |url=https://lawdss.com/nyc-admin-code-10-180-unlawful-disclosure-of-an-intimate-image/ |website=New York Revenge Porn Lawyers |access-date=4 April 2022}}</ref> have [[computer crime|anti-cyberharassment]] laws that may be applicable to cases of revenge porn.<ref name="ncsl.org">{{cite web | url = http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx | title = State Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment Laws | work = National Conference of State Legislatures | date = 16 November 2012}}</ref> In February 2014, a US$500,000 settlement was awarded to a Texas woman who brought suit against her ex-boyfriend for posting video and photos of her on the Internet. The state did not have a specific "revenge porn" law at the time of the lawsuit.<ref name=ABCNewsTX>{{cite web|last=Staff|title=Houston woman wins $500,000 in 'revenge porn' lawsuit|url=http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/national_world&id=9447698|publisher=abclocal.go.com|access-date=3 March 2014}}</ref><ref name=AVNTexas>{{cite web|last=Staff|title=Texas Jury Awards Revenge-Porned Woman Half a Mil|url=http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Texas-Jury-Awards-Revenge-Porned-Woman-Half-a-Mil-550467.html|publisher=Adult Video News|access-date=3 March 2014}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Robertson |first=Adi |date=1 March 2014 |title=Texas woman wins half-million dollar revenge porn lawsuit |url=https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/1/5459904/texas-woman-wins-half-million-dollar-revenge-porn-lawsuit |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220504081911/https://www.theverge.com/2014/3/1/5459904/texas-woman-wins-half-million-dollar-revenge-porn-lawsuit |archive-date=4 May 2022 |website=[[The Verge]] |language=en}}</ref> California has a private right of action in tort for acts of revenge pornography within the civil code, as well as a specific criminal statute punishing revenge pornography as an invasion of privacy.<ref name="Becky Peterson">{{cite web | url=https://www.businessinsider.com/rob-kardashian-legal-risk-for-chyna-blac-revenge-porn-2017-7/ | title=Revenge porn is illegal in California — here's what could happen to Rob Kardashian for tweeting explicit photos of his ex | date=5 July 2017 | access-date=7 December 2018 | author= Becky Peterson| website=[[Business Insider]] }}</ref> =====Communications Decency Act §230===== Some revenge porn lawsuits have named service providers and websites as defendants alongside individuals who uploaded the images.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Toups v. Godaddy.com |vol= |reporter=No. D130018-C |opinion= |pinpoint= |court=Tex. |date=June 18, 2013 |url=https://www.scribd.com/doc/121463764/Class-Action-Suit-Against-GoDaddy-com-Texxxan-com |access-date= |quote= |postscript= }}</ref> [[Section 230]] (§230) of the [[Communications Decency Act]] shields websites and service providers from liability for content posted by users providing they are not themselves co-creators of the content.<ref>{{USCode|47|230}} Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material [https://web.archive.org/web/20220905053508/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 Archived]</ref><ref name=lichter>{{cite news|last1=Lichter|first1=Susanna|title=Unwanted exposure: Civil and criminal liability for revenge porn hosts and posters|url=http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/privacy/unwanted-exposure-civil-and-criminal-liability-for-revenge-porn-hosts-and-posters|work=Harvard Journal of Law and Technology|date=28 May 2013|access-date=8 October 2013|archive-date=13 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131013022726/http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/privacy/unwanted-exposure-civil-and-criminal-liability-for-revenge-porn-hosts-and-posters|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Franks|first1=Mary Anne|title=The Lawless Internet? Myths and Misconceptions About CDA Section 230|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-franks/section-230-the-lawless-internet_b_4455090.html|website=huffingtonpost.com|publisher=[[Huffington Post]]|date=18 December 2013}}</ref> If user-generated content posted to a website does not violate copyright or federal criminal laws, sites have no obligation to remove the content under §230.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brito |first=Jerry |date=2013-10-21 |title=Are Laws Against "Revenge Porn" A Good Idea? |url=https://reason.com/2013/10/21/are-laws-against-revenge-porn-a-good-ide/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819074452/https://reason.com/2013/10/21/are-laws-against-revenge-porn-a-good-ide/ |archive-date=19 August 2022 |access-date=2022-09-07 |website=[[Reason (magazine)|Reason]] |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Wolf|2014|loc= [https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tulicl23&id=259 pp. 255-264]}}{{Subscription needed|via=[[HeinOnline]]}}</ref> =====Copyright===== An estimated 80% of revenge porn pictures and videos are taken by the subjects themselves.<ref name="kelly">{{Cite web |last=Kelly |first=Heather |date=2013-10-03 |title=New California 'revenge porn' law may miss some victims |url=https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/03/tech/web/revenge-porn-law-california/index.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220728070749/https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/03/tech/web/revenge-porn-law-california/index.html |archive-date=28 July 2022 |access-date=2022-09-07 |website=[[CNN]] |language=en}}</ref> Those individuals can bring actions for [[copyright infringement]] against the person who uploaded their nude or semi-nude "[[selfie]]s". American victims may file [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] takedown notices with service providers.<ref>{{USCode|17|102}} Subject Matter of Copyright: In General].</ref> Revenge porn site [[MyEx.com]] has been a defendant in a copyright infringement case.<ref name=usdc>{{Cite web |url= http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1658&context=historical |title= Hollie Toups vs Google, Inc., Yahoo!, Inc. and www.myex.com|date= March 6, 2014 |work=United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division |access-date=July 19, 2014}}</ref> =====First Amendment and anti-SLAPP===== Some [[free speech]] advocates object to revenge porn laws on [[First Amendment]] grounds, citing the fact that US laws restricting expression have a history of being overturned.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=United States v. Alvarez |vol=132 |reporter=S. Ct. |opinion=2537, 2544 |pinpoint= |court= |date=2012 |url=https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-alvarez |access-date= |quote=[A]s a general matter, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content |postscript= }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Fuchs |first=Erin |date=1 October 2013 |title=Here's What The Constitution Says About Posting Naked Pictures Of Your Ex To The Internet |url=https://www.businessinsider.com/is-revenge-porn-protected-by-the-first-amendment-2013-9 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210423114436/https://www.businessinsider.com/is-revenge-porn-protected-by-the-first-amendment-2013-9 |archive-date=23 April 2021 |website=[[Business Insider]]}}</ref> Journalist Sarah Jeong argues that new criminal laws meant to combat revenge porn are likely to be [[Overbreadth doctrine|overbroad]], resulting in unintended consequences.<ref>{{cite news | last1=Jeong |first1=Sarah | date = 28 October 2013 | title = Revenge Porn Is Bad. Criminalizing It Is Worse | magazine = [[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] | access-date = 25 June 2015 | url = https://www.wired.com/2013/10/why-criminalizing-revenge-porn-is-a-bad-idea/}}</ref> Revenge porn uploaders and websites may also challenge lawsuits using state protections against [[strategic lawsuit against public participation]]s (anti-SLAPP laws),<ref>{{cite news | author = Mullin, Joe | url = http://staging.arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/new-lawsuit-against-revenge-porn-site-also-targets-godaddy | title = New lawsuit against 'revenge porn' site also targets GoDaddy | work = Ars Technica | date = 22 January 2013}}</ref> which allow defendants to counter lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech.<ref>{{Cite web |title=What is a SLAPP suit? |url=http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=475 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101202054558/http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=475 |archive-date=2 December 2010 |website=[[Lumen (website)|Lumen]]}}</ref> ===Europe=== Many European countries have broad privacy statutes that may be applicable to revenge porn.<ref>{{harvnb|Rotenberg & Jacobs|2013}}</ref> France also criminalizes the willful violation of the intimate private life of another by "transmitting the picture of a person who is within a private place, without the consent of the person concerned".<ref>{{cite web | url = http://archive.equal-jus.eu/181/1/French_penal_code.pdf | title = French Penal Code Article 226-1 | date = 19 November 2013}}</ref> A German [[High Court]] made a May 2014 ruling that intimate photographs of partners should be deleted if the partner so requests.<ref name=2014IndependentGrayling/> In 2019 Italy approved a law punishing whoever disseminates images or videos with sexually explicit content, intended to remain private, without the consent of the persons represented, with a jail sentence from one to six years and a fine from €5,000 to €15,000.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2019-07-17|title=Violenza sulle donne, il codice rosso è legge: c'è il sì del Senato|url=https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2019/07/17/news/codice_rosso_senato-231421710/|access-date=2020-10-19|website=la Repubblica|language=it}}</ref> In 2020, [[pornhub]] removed 10 million videos uploaded by unverified users after accusations from the public and refusal of mastercard and visa to work with site.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Pornhub just removed 10 million videos |url=https://sg.news.yahoo.com/pornhub-just-removed-10-million-105500783.html |access-date=2022-11-11 |website=sg.news.yahoo.com |language=en-SG}}</ref> ====Malta==== A law criminalising revenge porn in Malta entered into force in November 2016. Article 208E of the Maltese Criminal Code punishes whoever, with an intent to cause distress, emotional harm or harm of any nature, discloses a private sexual photograph or film without the consent of the person or persons displayed or depicted in such photograph or film. Such person would, on conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term of up to two years or to a fine of not less than €3,000 and not more than €5,000, or to both such imprisonment and fine.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2017-04-17/local-news/Government-does-not-exclude-updating-current-laws-on-suits-for-pain-and-suffering-6736173075|title=Government does not exclude updating current laws on suits for pain and suffering|last=Grech|first=Helena|date=17 April 2017|publisher=The Malta Independent|access-date=2017-04-17}}</ref>{{Better source needed|date=April 2017}} ====United Kingdom==== =====England and Wales===== In 2012, the English singer-songwriter [[Tulisa]] Contostavlos obtained an injunction preventing the distribution of a sex tape of her and a former lover that had been published on the internet.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/850.html|title=Tulisa Contostavlos v Michael Mendahun and others|date=29 March 2012|work=bailii.org|access-date=5 October 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news| url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9155127/Tulisa-sex-tape-removed-after-lawyers-obtain-injunction.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9155127/Tulisa-sex-tape-removed-after-lawyers-obtain-injunction.html |archive-date=2022-01-12 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live | location=London | work=The Daily Telegraph | title=Tulisa 'sex tape' removed after lawyers obtain injunction | date=20 March 2012}}{{cbignore}}</ref> The case was set to include considerable damages, but was settled out of court before it could be considered.<ref name="House of Lords report"/> In April 2014, UK charities including [[The National Stalking Helpline]], [[Women's Aid]], and the [[UK Safer Internet Centre]] reported increased use of revenge porn websites.<ref name=2014IndependentGrayling/> Women's Aid Charity Chief Executive Polly Neate stated, "To be meaningful, any attempt to tackle revenge porn must also take account of all other kinds of psychological abuse and [[controlling behaviour]], and revenge porn is just another form of [[coercive control]]. That control is central to domestic violence, which is why we're campaigning for all psychological abuse and coercive control to be criminalised". In July [[Chris Grayling]], the [[Secretary of State for Justice]], announced plans to "take appropriate action" to address revenge porn in Britain.<ref name=2014IndependentGrayling>{{cite news|last1=Simpson|first1=Jack|title=Revenge porn: What is it and how widespread is the problem?|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/what-is-revenge-porn-9580251.html|website=www.independent.co.uk|publisher=Independent UK|access-date=7 July 2014|location=London|date=2 July 2014}}</ref> A House of Lords Committee, in a report on social media and the law, subsequently called for clarification from the [[Director of Public Prosecutions (England and Wales)|DPP]] as to when revenge porn becomes a crime.<ref name="House of Lords report">{{cite web|title=Social media and criminal offences – Communications Committee Contents|url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldcomuni/37/3704.htm|publisher=[[House of Lords]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title='Revenge porn' laws must be clearer, say Lords|url=https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jul/29/revenge-porn-laws-must-be-clearer-say-lords|work=[[The Guardian]]|agency=Press Association|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141009050558/http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/jul/29/revenge-porn-laws-must-be-clearer-say-lords|archive-date=9 October 2014|url-status=live}}</ref> The [[Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015]] received [[Royal Assent]]. Section 33 of the Act makes it an offence in England and Wales to disclose private sexual photographs and films without the consent of the individual depicted and with the intent to cause distress. There is a maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31429026|title='Revenge porn' illegal under new law in England and Wales|work=BBC News | date=12 February 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015|url=http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/33/enacted#section-33-1-a|website=legislation.gov.uk|publisher=[[Her Majesty's Stationery Office]]}}</ref> On 23 April 2015, a seminar was held in [[Westminster]] on the new legislation. The seminar was organised by the [[Oxford Human Rights Hub]] and co-hosted with the law firm McAllister Olivarius, the [[End Violence Against Women Coalition]], the [[Durham University|University of Durham]], and the [[University of Birmingham]].<ref>{{cite web|title=Event: Revenge Porn: The New Law|url=http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/revenge-porn-the-new-law/|website=ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk|publisher=[[Oxford Human Rights Hub]]}}</ref> The seminar called for the law to be extended to cover [[upskirting]], a change that was subsequently made with the passing of the [[Voyeurism (Offences) Act 2019]]. In June 2015 [[BriaAndChrissy|Chrissy Chambers]], a [[YouTube]] star from the United States, pursued a civil suit against her British ex-boyfriend who posted sexually-explicit videos taken without her knowledge or consent to [[Facebook]] where they were [[viral video|repeatedly shared]]. Chambers chose to pursue a civil case as the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 does not apply retroactively to content posted prior to its passage.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Kleeman|first1=Jenny|title=US woman pursues ex-boyfriend in landmark UK revenge-porn action|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/03/us-woman-pursues-ex-boyfriend-in-landmark-uk-revenge-porn-action|website=[[The Guardian]]|date=3 June 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last1=Luckhurst|first1=Phoebe|title=YouTube star Chrissy Chambers: 'Discovering revenge porn video devastated me|url=https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/youtube-star-chrissy-chambers-discovering-revenge-porn-video-devastated-me-10307182.html|website=standard.co.uk|publisher=[[London Evening Standard]]|date=9 June 2015}}</ref> She was represented by McAllister Olivarius and in January 2018 won "substantial damages".<ref>{{cite news|title=YouTube star wins damages in landmark UK 'revenge porn' case|newspaper=The Guardian|date=17 January 2018|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/youtube-star-chrissy-chambers-wins-damages-in-landmark-uk-revenge-porn-case}}</ref> Drawing on this and other cases, Dr. [[Ann Olivarius]] of the same firm gave a [[TEDx]]Reading talk on "Revenge Porn: The Naked Truth".<ref>{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVHZS1qgtrA| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211118/iVHZS1qgtrA| archive-date=2021-11-18 | url-status=live|title=Revenge Porn: The Naked Truth|author=Ann Olivarius|date=7 Dec 2018|publisher=TEDx Talks|via=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Between April 2015 (the date that section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 came into force) and December 2015 the number of reported incidents of revenge pornography in England and Wales was 1,160. However, 61% of them resulted in no action being taken and the number of people prosecuted for disclosing private sexual images during the legislation's first year was 206.{{citation needed|date=July 2019}} It emerged that cases of those who had been victims of revenge porn before April 2015 were not pursued under the new law, causing criticism that perpetrators "got away with" their crimes when committed before the Act came into force.<ref name=":13">{{Cite web|url=http://theconversation.com/revenge-porn-law-is-failing-victims-heres-why-90497|title=Revenge porn law is failing victims – here's why|last=Huber|first=Antoinette Raffaela|website=The Conversation|language=en|access-date=2020-04-08}}</ref> Before April 2015, the law most applicable to revenge porn, specifically image-based sexual abuse, was the [[Malicious Communications Act 1988|1988 Malicious Communication Act]], and "With police officers' understanding of revenge porn now being based on the newer legislation, prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act for similar cases is less likely to be considered. And so police officers may be less likely to consider alternative legislation for those cases which predate April 2015."<ref name=":13"/> The Revenge Porn Helpline was set up in 2015. In 2019 it was announced that the [[Law Commission (England and Wales)|Law Commission]] would examine the possibility of reclassifying revenge porn from a "communications crime" to a sexual offence, thus giving victims anonymity.<ref>{{cite news|title=Revenge porn: Government to review image-based sexual abuse law|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48760051|date=26 June 2019|work=BBC News|access-date=9 July 2019}}</ref> =====Scotland===== In Scotland, revenge porn became a specific offence in April 2016 with the adoption of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm Act, which came into force in July 2017.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40473912|title=New 'revenge porn' law comes into force|date=2017-07-03|work=BBC News|access-date=2020-04-08|language=en-GB}}</ref> =====Northern Ireland===== In Northern Ireland, revenge porn was made a crime in February 2016 through the amendment of an existing law.<ref>{{cite news|title=Revenge porn: More than 200 prosecuted under new law|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37278264|date=6 September 2016|work=BBC News|access-date=7 September 2016}}</ref> ==Minors== If the video or images in question are of individuals who are minors, this can lead to legal action for [[child pornography]]<ref>{{cite news |url=http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/technology&id=6555650 |title=Sexting teens can go too far |work=Philadelphia News |date=2008-12-14 |access-date=2014-03-27 |archive-date=2010-01-31 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100131095242/http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news%2Ftechnology&id=6555650 |url-status=dead }}</ref> as has happened in non-revenge porn related cases involving [[sexting]].<ref name=2013CaNPSelfiePorn>{{cite web|last=Seidman|first=Karen|title=Child pornography laws 'too harsh' to deal with minors sexting photos without consent, experts say|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/11/16/child-pornography-laws-too-harsh-to-deal-with-minors-sexting-photos-without-consent-experts-say/|publisher=National Post News – Canada|access-date=27 March 2014}}</ref><ref name=CnetSelfiePorn>{{cite web|last=Matyszczyk|first=Chris|title=Teen charged with child porn for allegedly tweeting nude selfies|url=http://www.cnet.com/news/teen-charged-with-child-porn-for-allegedly-tweeting-nude-selfies/|publisher=Cnet.com|access-date=27 March 2014}}</ref> ==Prenuptial agreements== {{main|Prenuptial agreement}} Some couples draft "social media" [[prenuptial agreement]]s,<ref name=2014ABCSocialMedia>{{cite web|last1=Effron|first1=Lauren|title= I Love You, You're Perfect, but Watch What You Facebook: Social Media Prenups|url=https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/love-perfect-watch-facebook-social-media-prenups/story?id=23977608&singlePage=true|website=abcnews.go.com|publisher=ABC News, Good Morning America|access-date=9 June 2014}}</ref> which may include provisions relating to revenge porn.<ref name=2014AVNPrenup>{{cite web|last1=Staff|title='Revenge Porn' Increasingly Added to Marriage Prenups|url=http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Revenge-Porn-Increasingly-Added-to-Marriage-Prenups-563939.html|website=AVN.com|publisher=Adult Video News|access-date=9 June 2014}}</ref> Clauses may state that couples agree not to share photos or posts that are likely to harm a spouse's professional reputation.<ref name=2014ABCSocialMedia/> ==In other media== The novel ''The Drowning Pool'' (1950) by [[Ross Macdonald]], part of the series starring fictional detective [[Lew Archer]], features a subplot of a woman trying to stop distribution of a sexual film taken without her knowledge.<ref>{{cite book |last=MacDonald |first=Ross |author-link=Ross_Macdonald |title=The Drowning Pool |year=1996 |location=New York |publisher=Vintage Books |page=156 |isbn=0-679-76806-8 |quote=Divorce is not what he wants. I’ve begged him for a divorce every day for the last six months. He wanted to keep me under his fat thumb for the rest of his life, and that was his way of doing it. If I stepped out of line just once, he was going to let Rico sell the film for distribution. They’d be showing it for years at stag parties and conventions and after-hours nightclubs. My face is known. What could I do?}}</ref> The 2017 independent film ''[[From Jennifer]]'' tackles the subject of revenge porn. In the film, the main character's acting career is derailed by an ex-boyfriend who posts a video of them online without her consent. When the video goes viral, her manager drops her as a client, and the ensuing humiliation she suffers leads her toward a path of destruction and counter-revenge. In 2021, the BBC film ''Zara McDermott: Revenge Porn'' came out, in which [[Zara McDermott]] recalled the experience of having her nude photos leaked as a teenager.<ref>{{cite news |title=BBC Three announces Zara McDermott: Revenge Porn (w/t) |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2020/zara-mcdermott-revenge-porn-bbc-three |publisher=[[BBC]] |access-date=16 July 2022 |date=13 March 2020 |archive-date=13 July 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220713200404/https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2020/zara-mcdermott-revenge-porn-bbc-three |url-status=live }}</ref> ==See also== * [[Deepfake pornography]] * [[Online shaming]] * [[Participatory surveillance]] ==References== {{reflist|30em}} ==Further reading== * {{cite journal|last1=Citron|first1=Danielle Keats |author-link1=Danielle Citron |title=Cyber Civil Rights|journal=[[Boston University School of Law#Law Journals|Boston University Law Review]]|date=February 2009|volume=89|issue=1|pages=61–126|url=http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume89n1/documents/CITRON.pdf}} * {{cite journal|last1=Citron|first1=Danielle Keats |author-link1=Danielle Citron |last2=Franks|first2=Mary Anne |author-link2=Mary Anne Franks |journal=[[Wake Forest Law Review]]|date=2014|volume=49|issue=2|pages=345–392|url=http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs/1420/|title=Criminalizing Revenge Porn|ref={{harvid|Citron & Franks|2014}}}} * {{Cite journal |last1=Hayward |first1=Philip |last2=Rahn |first2=Alison |date=January 2015 |title=Opening Pandora's Box: pleasure, consent and consequence in the production and circulation of celebrity sex videos |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23268743.2014.984951 |journal=[[Porn Studies]] |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=49–61 |doi=10.1080/23268743.2014.984951 |ref={{harvid|Hayward & Rahn|2015}}}} * {{Cite journal |last=Matsui |first=Shigenori |date=April 2015 |title=The Criminalization of Revenge Porn in Japan |url=https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1687&context=wilj |journal=[[Washington International Law Journal]] |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=289–318 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200709153929/https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1687&context=wilj |archive-date=9 July 2020}} * {{Cite journal|last1=McGlynn|first1=Clare |author-link1=Clare McGlynn |last2=Rackley|first2=Erika|year=2017|title=Image-Based Sexual Abuse|journal=[[Oxford Journal of Legal Studies]] |language=en|volume=37|issue=3|pages=534–561|doi=10.1093/ojls/gqw033|issn=0143-6503|url=https://kar.kent.ac.uk/76541/1/20260.pdf}} * {{cite journal | last1 = Rotenberg | first1 = Marc |author-link1=Marc Rotenberg | last2 = Jacobs | first2 = David | url = http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/36_2_605_Rotenberg_Jacobs.pdf | title = Updating the Law of Information Privacy: The New Framework of the European Union | journal = [[Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy]] | volume = 36 | issue = 2 | year = 2013 | ref = {{harvid|Rotenberg & Jacobs|2013}} | access-date = 2013-11-28 | archive-date = 2014-06-02 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140602072641/http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/36_2_605_Rotenberg_Jacobs.pdf | url-status = dead }} * {{cite journal|last1=Wolf|first1=Brittany|title=Free Speech versus Human Dignity: Comparative Perspectives on Internet Privacy|journal=[[Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law]]|date=Winter 2014|volume=23|issue=1|pages=251–282|url=http://www.law.tulane.edu/uploadedFiles/Tulane_Journal_Sites/Tulane_Journal_of_International_and_Comparative_Law/Table_of_Contents/05%20i231covtoc.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150630124041/http://www.law.tulane.edu/uploadedFiles/Tulane_Journal_Sites/Tulane_Journal_of_International_and_Comparative_Law/Table_of_Contents/05%20i231covtoc.pdf |archive-date=1 October 2013}} {{Wiktionary}} {{Sexual abuse|collapsed}} {{Pornography}} [[Category:Pornography]] [[Category:Internet culture]] [[Category:Sex and the law]] [[Category:Privacy controversies and disputes]] [[Category:Psychological abuse]] [[Category:Sexual abuse]] [[Category:Sexual misconduct]] [[Category:Revenge]] [[Category:Cybercrime]] {{Authority control}}'