Derek Mead dissects the myriad problems with California’s push to make revenge porn illegal:
Proving intent will already be difficult at a criminal trial, as the law essentially sets up a he said, she said situation (or whichever pronouns you prefer) in every single case, which are difficult to prosecute. … It’s also more disgusting than a contract dispute over plumbing services or something more mundane, which adds an extra barrier for victims to overcome when thinking about a civil suit. That’s not to mention the extreme cost: Spending thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars in the hope of winning a judgment against an ex is a course of action few people can justify.
That, combined with the fact that photos online will never go away, is a good reason to try to deter revenge porn by criminalizing it. With lawmakers already making hamfisted laws to ban or restrict photography in the name of privacy as well as protect copyright as aggressively as possible, it’s easy to wonder why legislators have been reserved in this case. But adding more broad laws that improperly regulate the internet isn’t the answer.
Recently, law professor Mary Anne Franks criticized a Florida bill attempting the same thing:
[S]he says the law is ultimately “both too broad and too narrow.” For example, the bill applies to “any photograph or video of an individual which depicts nudity,” but doesn’t define nudity. It’s “an extremely broad formulation that could potentially include a photograph of someone standing next to a picture of Botticelli’s Venus,” says Franks. At the same time, it’s “a narrow definition, in that it would presumably not apply to depictions of graphic sexual activity unless certain parts of the body are visible,” she says. Franks tells me of an actual case in which a man ejaculated on his sleeping girlfriend’s face and then uploaded pictures to the Internet — that would not violate Florida’s law.
The Dish 