Fast Exit > 0

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY BAR DV COMMITTEE …

Revenge Porn

RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY BAR DV COMMITTEE ABOUT REVENGE PORN LEGISLATION

February 27, 2015

The New York City Bar DV Committee will be voting on revenge porn legislation at its next meeting with the goal of expressing a recommendation to our state lawmakers.  I was asked to present the issue.  Below is my advice.

To:        New York City Bar Domestic Violence Committee

From:   Carrie A. Goldberg,[1] Committee Member

Re:       New York State proposed criminal legislation on Nonconsensual Distribution of Pornography (i.e. “Revenge Porn”)

Date:    February 27, 2015

Recommendations:

1.     Support the swift passage of a “Revenge Porn” criminal law in New York State

2.     Support (with modifications) the 2014 Bill A08214-A (aka S05949 – A) introduced by Assembly Member Braunstein – D.

3.     Withhold support for the 2014 Bill A08204 (aka S05946-A) introduced by Senator Boyle – R.

I. Revenge Porn – Defining the Problem

The disclosure of sexually explicit images without consent and for no legitimate purpose – popularly but misleadingly referred to as “revenge porn” – causes immediate, devastating, and in many cases irreversible harm. A vengeful ex-partner, opportunistic hacker, or rapist can upload an explicit image of a victim to a website where thousands of people can view it and hundreds of other websites can share it. In a matter of days, that image can dominate the first several pages of search engine results for the victim’s name, as well as being emailed or otherwise exhibited to the victim’s family, employers, co-workers and peers.[2]

Nonconsensual pornography is not a new phenomenon, but its prevalence, reach and impact have increased in recent years.  The Internet has greatly facilitated the rise of nonconsensual pornography, as dedicated revenge porn sites and other forums openly solicit private intimate images and expose them to millions of viewers.  As many as 3000 websites feature revenge porn.[3] Websites dedicated solely to revenge porn exist to connect individuals who wish to disclose intimate material without consent with individuals who wish to consume it.  Visitors to these sites are frequently not content to merely view the material, but often also viciously harass the subjects depicted, and make crude commentary about victims’ bodies, about victims’ promiscuity and sexual health. To make the victims’ identity unmistakable websites[4] post personal information about the victims (e.g. full name, age, address, employer, email address, social media screenshots, social security number, school, etc.) alongside the images.  Consumers frequently interpret this information as an invitation to engage in unsolicited contact with victims. They encourage one another to unearth and publish even more intimate images and personal details about the victims, prying into their personal lives and sometimes hacking into email accounts in this quest.  In addition to publishing revenge porn on websites for strangers to consume, some offenders transmit the material directly to those close to the victims through email or text, or post it publicly on social media platforms linked to the victims, such as their Facebook or Instagram page, or tweet it.  Still others go to even further trouble and create entire websites devoted to their victim and then send her family members the link.

Victims are routinely threatened with sexual assault, stalked, harassed, fired from jobs,[5] forced to change schools, disciplined at school, forced to move and change their names.[6]  Some victims have even committed suicide.[7]  At minimum, most victims close their social media accounts and withdraw from the Internet.[8]  Ninety percent of victims are women and 93% have reported that they suffer extreme emotional distress.[9]

Revenge porn website operators usually escape civil and criminal liability for their critical role in hosting revenge porn because of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), a federal law which grants online intermediaries immunity for content posted by third parties.[10] Any modifications to the CDA would be vehemently fought by our country’s wealthy and powerful tech industry. Intelletual property and tort laws are unfit to fully address the problem – these methods are costly, time-consuming, burdensome, after-the-fact, and they prolong (and intensify) the victim—offender contact.  Consequently, efforts must be directed at deterring the wouldbe offenders from offending in the first place.  Criminal laws is the way to do it.

II.  The National Landscape

Sixteen states have passed laws addressing the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, most within the last year.[11]Additionally, bills are presently pending in twelve states or territories.[12]  The issue of revenge porn crosses political lines – laws have been enthusiastically embraced in both red and blue states and the legislation has been introduced by both Democratic and Republican state lawmakers.  Even the Federal Trade Commission has identified the industry as engaging in unfair or deceptive trade practices, though this has hardly lessened the popularity of the crime.[13]

California is emerging as a leader in the crackdown on revenge porn.  California has already passed two criminal laws and a civil one. Attorney General Kamala Harris established a Cyber Exploitation Group comprised of leading attorneys, advocates, politicians, law enforcers, and tech companies (i.e. Facebook, Google, etc.).  It is also poised to be the birth place of our country’s first proposed federal law, sponsored by Representative Jackie Speier CA-D, not to mention the home of several important criminal cases.[14]

Revenge porn, like other computer-based crimes, defies state and national borders and requires a uniform and collaborative response.  A federal criminal law is being proposed by Jackie Speier CA-D, but it’s no substitution for the immediate need for state laws that can be enforced and prosecuted on a local level.

III. Revenge Porn Laws in New York State  — There Are None

New York has no revenge porn statute.[15] In New York it is perfectly legal to distribute naked pictures of somebody without their consent and publish them alongside personal information about where they work, go to school, live, names of their relatives, and more.

At any given time, there are an average of 36 pages (10 persons per page, 3-10 images per person) of New Yorkers on myex.com, a particularly popular dedicated revenge porn site which enables consumers to search for victims by city, state, and name.  The average victim receives 30,000 to 80,000 views.  And this is just one of the many online sites in the marketplace.

A February 2014 case illustrates the gap in New York’s criminal laws when it comes to protecting residents from these sexual privacy invasions.[16] In the New York County case The People v Ian Barber, Judge Steven M. Statsinger lamented that he was unable to charge defendant Ian Barber with any crimes after he posted naked pictures of his ex-girlfriend on Twitter and sent them to her employer and sister.  The judge called Barber’s acts “reprehensible,” yet outside the scope of any existing criminal law in New York State, including the three Barber been charged under:  1) Unlawful surveillance — it wasn’t that because the pictures had been captured with the victim’s consent, 2) Harassment – it wasn’t that because Barber’s discrete acts did not constitute a “course of conduct” and communication was not directed at the victim, 3) Public display of offensive sexual material – it wasn’t that because, according to this judge, Twitter and email do not constitute a public display.  Moreover, nudity alone, he said, does not satisfy the statute’s requirement that it involve a “prurient interest in sex.”

New York State has readily embraced other criminal laws relating to nonconsensual distributions of information.  However, its present laws only protect consumers and corporations – and ignore the far more devastating harm suffered by individuals whose sexual information is exposed.  For instance, there are eleven laws outlawing the unauthorized recording and distribution of sounds (i.e. music).[17] Similar laws exist to protect the privacy of financial data and credit card numbers. So while recording and distributing a video taken at a Beyoncé concert or uploading a scene from “Birdman” onto your blog is illegal, sending naked pictures to a person’s boss and colleagues is not.

IV. NY State’s Pending Revenge Porn Legislation

There are presently two revenge porn laws pending in New York State: 1) Bill S05946-A (aka A08204-A) sponsored by Senator Boyle – R (“Boyle Bill”) passed the senate on June 11, 2014 and is now in codes in the Assembly. 2) Bill A08214-A (aka S05949-A) sponsored originally by Assembly Member Braunstein – D (“Braunstein Bill”) has not been voted upon by either house.  (The full text of the bills starts on page 7 of this doc)  Both bills add a new section to penal law section 250.70.[18]

The Braunstein bill is by far the stronger of the two.  It embraces the language drafted and endorsed by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, and which is reflected in  other good state laws – both passed and pending — including Illinois and California, where the laws are presently in effect.

Braunstein’s Law is superior for the following reasons:

1   Braunstein’s bill applies to real life.  Boyle’s bill covers only a subset of the problem conduct.  Illogically, Boyle’s bill requires that the offender have the “intent to harass, annoy or alarm” the victim.[19]  Requiring this type of intent excludes a swath of offenders, though. Some people engage in non-consensual pornography out of a desire for financial gain, for the “lulz,” for entertainment, for sexual gratification, or for no particular reason at all. Intent to harm requirements leave many serious violations of sexual privacy beyond the reach of the law – consider the celebrity “nude photo” hack[20] and the GamerGate victims[21], the case in which a boyfriend tried to aggress against his boss by leaking pictures of her daughter[22], the threat by Anonymous to distribute images of the police chief’s daughter in Ferguson[23], the NFL player whose one-night stand distributed his nude picture because she was “bored” and “drunk.”[24] The offender was driven by something other than the desire to harm the victim in all those cases.  Nevertheless, none of the offenders would be charged under Boyle’s law.

2   DefinitionsBraunstein’s bill carefully defines key terms, such as “disclose,” “intimate parts” and “sexual contact.”  Boyle’s bill, on the other hand, has no definitions. It does not put people on notice of what constitutes “dissemination.”  Nor does it define key terms relating to what the image must contain: “sexual or other intimate parts.”

3   Sexual Contact.  Braunstein’s bill applies to images not just showing nudity, but also images depicting “sexual contact.” In many cases, revenge porn depicts the victim performing oral sex or having been ejaculated upon.  Boyle’s bill would not cover these images.  Nor would it cover images and videos that show the victim having sex where her genitals are obscured, despite her face being fully visible.

4   Downstream distributors. Braunstein’s bill contains language that could prevent the image from going viral.   On the other hand, because of Boyle’s intent requirement, in most cases only the original non-consensual distribution will be covered.  Braunstein’s bill, deters secondary recipients from forwarding and redistributing the images by employing a “reasonable person” standard. The law considers whether a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private and that the person depicted has not consented to the dissemination.

5   First Amendment. The Braunstein bill is narrowly tailored, so as not to sweep up expressive conduct outside the scope of what we’re trying to regulate. The statute contains exemptions for when distribution happens because of law enforcement, criminal reporting, or legal proceedings, reporting unlawful activity, legitimate public purposes, and situations in which person depicted in the image was in a public or commercial setting.

V.  Recommended Modifications to Braunstein’s bill

The suggested changes are minor:

1.     Doxxing. The law should have additional penalties when personal information is released with the sexual images.  Fifty nine percent of victims report that published with the images are their full name, email address, social network screenshots, home address, workplace, school etc.[25] As noted earlier, this information destroys victims’ search engine results and instigate the stalking that victims report.

2.     Penalty.  Revenge porn causes significant, irretrievable, life-changing harms.  It should be a felony level crime.

3.     “Sexual Conduct”  The term “sexual contact”  should be changed to “sexual conduct” and the definition should be broadened to include masturbation and images depicting ejaculate on an individual’s body or clothes.

CONCLUSION

New York is in desparate need of a strong criminal law to protect people from becoming nonconsensual porn stars. Braunstein’s bill is just that. Presently, we lag behind other states in prioritizing sexual privacy. Further delay in passing such a law shall demonstrate how disconnected our lawmakers are from modernizig sexual threats. Revenge porn can’t be relegated to “just” an online problem. Victims experience longlasting online and offline impact from this assault on their dignity. Every day we wait for Albany to act, is another day that bad actors abuse innocent people’s sexual privacy.

 

BRAUNSTEIN BILL

 

A08214 Summary:

BILL NO    A08214A

 

SAME AS    SAME AS S05949-A

 

S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K

________________________________________________________________________

 

8214–A

 

2013-2014 Regular Sessions

 

I N  A S S E M B L Y

 

October 24, 2013

___________

 

Introduced by M. of A. BRAUNSTEIN, BRINDISI, PAULIN, SCHIMEL, McDONOUGH,

DUPREY,  MONTESANO,  SIMOTAS,  MORELLE,  BARRETT,  BENEDETTO, BORELLI,

BLANKENBUSH, TENNEY, RAIA — Multi-Sponsored by — M.  of  A.  CROUCH,

GALEF, MARKEY, McKEVITT, RODRIGUEZ, SKARTADOS, WEISENBERG — read once

and referred to the Committee on Codes — recommitted to the Committee

on  Codes  in  accordance  with  Assembly  Rule 3, sec. 2 — committee

discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted

to said committee

 

AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to establishing the crime  of

non-consensual disclosure of sexually explicit images

 

THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-

BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

 

1    Section 1. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 250.70  to

2  read as follows:

3  S 250.70 NON-CONSENSUAL DISCLOSURE OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT IMAGES.

4    A  PERSON  IS GUILTY OF NON-CONSENSUAL DISCLOSURE OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT

5  IMAGES WHEN HE OR SHE  INTENTIONALLY  AND KNOWINGLY DISCLOSES  A  PHOTO-

6  GRAPH,  FILM,  VIDEOTAPE,  RECORDING,  OR  ANY OTHER REPRODUCTION OF THE

7  IMAGE OF ANOTHER PERSON WHOSE INTIMATE  PARTS  ARE  EXPOSED  OR  WHO  IS

8  ENGAGED  IN AN ACT OF SEXUAL CONTACT WITHOUT SUCH PERSON’S CONSENT, WHEN

9  A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE PERSON DEPICTED WOULD  NOT

10  HAVE  CONSENTED TO SUCH DISCLOSURE, AND UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE

11  PERSON HAS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION  OF  PRIVACY.    A  PERSON  WHO  HAS

12  CONSENTED TO THE CAPTURE OR POSSESSION OF AN IMAGE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF

13  A  PRIVATE OR CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP RETAINS A REASONABLE EXPECTATION

14  OF PRIVACY WITH REGARD TO DISCLOSURE BEYOND THAT RELATIONSHIP.

15    1. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:

16    (A) “DISCLOSE” MEANS TO SELL, MANUFACTURE, GIVE, PROVIDE, LEND, TRADE,

17  MAIL, DELIVER, TRANSFER, PUBLISH, DISTRIBUTE, CIRCULATE, DISCLOSE, PRES-

18  ENT, EXHIBIT, ADVERTISE OR OFFER.

 

EXPLANATION–Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

[ ] is old law to be omitted.

LBD11834-09-4

A. 8214–A                          2

 

1    (B) “INTIMATE PARTS” MEANS THE NAKED GENITALS, PUBIC  AREA,  BUTTOCKS,

2  OR FEMALE ADULT NIPPLE OF THE PERSON.

3    (C) “SEXUAL CONTACT” MEANS SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, INCLUDING GENITAL-GENI-

4  TAL,  ORAL-GENITAL,  ANAL-GENITAL, OR ORAL-ANAL, WHETHER BETWEEN PERSONS

5  OF THE SAME OR OPPOSITE SEX.

6    2. THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO:

7    (A) LAWFUL AND COMMON PRACTICES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT,  CRIMINAL  REPORT-

8  ING,  OR  LEGAL  PROCEEDINGS,  OR  DISCLOSURES  MADE IN THE REPORTING OF

9  UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY; OR

10    (B) SITUATIONS INVOLVING VOLUNTARY EXPOSURE IN  PUBLIC  OR  COMMERCIAL

11  SETTINGS, OR DISCLOSURES MADE FOR A LEGITIMATE PUBLIC PURPOSE.

12    NON-CONSENSUAL  DISCLOSURE  OF  SEXUALLY  EXPLICIT IMAGES IS A CLASS A

13  MISDEMEANOR.

14    S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-

15  ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

 

 

                                                        BOYLE BILL          

 

S T A T E   O F   N E W   Y O R K

________________________________________________________________________

 

5946–A

 

2013-2014 Regular Sessions

 

I N  S E N A T E

 

October 4, 2013

___________

 

Introduced  by  Sens.  BOYLE, GRISANTI, KENNEDY, MAZIARZ, ROBACH — read

twice and ordered printed, and when printed to  be  committed  to  the

Committee on Rules — recommitted to the Committee on Codes in accord-

ance with Senate Rule 6, sec. 8 — committee discharged, bill amended,

ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee

 

AN  ACT  to  amend  the penal law, in relation to creating the crimes of

unlawful dissemination of an intimate image in the  first  and  second

degrees

 

THE  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-

BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

 

1    Section 1. The section heading and the opening  paragraph  of  section

2  250.40 of the penal law, as added by chapter 69 of the laws of 2003, are

3  amended to read as follows:

4    Unlawful surveillance AND DISSEMINATION; definitions.

5    The  following  definitions  shall  apply  to sections 250.45, 250.50,

6  250.55 [and], 250.60, 250.70 AND 250.75 of this article:

7    S 2. The penal law is amended by adding two new  sections  250.70  and

8  250.75 to read as follows:

9  S  250.70  UNLAWFUL  DISSEMINATION  OF  AN  INTIMATE IMAGE IN THE SECOND

10             DEGREE.

11    A PERSON IS GUILTY OF UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF AN INTIMATE  IMAGE  IN

12  THE  SECOND  DEGREE  WHEN, WITH INTENT TO HARASS, ANNOY OR ALARM ANOTHER

13  PERSON, HE OR SHE INTENTIONALLY DISSEMINATES AN IMAGE OR IMAGES  OF  THE

14  SEXUAL  OR  OTHER  INTIMATE  PARTS  OF  ANOTHER  PERSON WITHOUT EXPLICIT

15  CONSENT OF SUCH PERSON TO DISSEMINATE SUCH IMAGE.

16    UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF AN INTIMATE IMAGE IN THE SECOND DEGREE IS  A

17  CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.

18  S  250.75  UNLAWFUL  DISSEMINATION  OF  AN  INTIMATE  IMAGE IN THE FIRST

19             DEGREE.

20    A PERSON IS GUILTY OF UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF AN INTIMATE  IMAGE  IN

21  THE  FIRST  DEGREE  WHEN HE OR SHE COMMITS THE CRIME OF UNLAWFUL DISSEM-

 

EXPLANATION–Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets

[ ] is old law to be omitted.

LBD11896-04-4

S. 5946–A                          2

 

1  INATION OF AN INTIMATE IMAGE IN THE SECOND  DEGREE  AND  HAS  PREVIOUSLY

2  BEEN CONVICTED WITHIN THE PAST TEN YEARS OF UNLAWFUL DISSEMINATION OF AN

3  INTIMATE IMAGE IN THE FIRST OR SECOND DEGREE.

4    UNLAWFUL  DISSEMINATION  OF AN INTIMATE IMAGE IN THE FIRST DEGREE IS A

5  CLASS E FELONY.

6    S 3. Nothing in this act shall be construed to impose liability on  an

7  interactive computer service for content provided by another person. The

8  term  “interactive  computer  service”  means  any  information service,

9  system, or access software provider that provides  or  enables  computer

10  access  by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a

11  service or system that provides access to the Internet and such  systems

12  operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.

13    S 4. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day after

 

[1] Carrie is an attorney at C. A. Goldberg, PLLC based in Brooklyn which litigates Internet privacy law, Title IX cases, and civil remedies for sexual assault survivors. She is a board member at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, Inc. (CCRI). With CCRI’s Legislative and Tech Policy Director, Mary Anne Franks, Carrie consulted on revenge porn statutes for Washington State and Massachusetts and amended statutes in Virginia and Texas.  She sits on AG Kamala Harris’ Cyber Exploitation Task Force for the State of California.  She authored a best practices manual for law enforcers dealing with revenge porn complaints and drafted the Feb 2015 FTC comment in In the Matter of Craig Brittain for CCRI and Without My Consent, Inc.  She blogs, tweets, writes, interviews, lectures, and litigates about consent, sex, and privacy.

[2] See Mary Anne Franks, Drafting an Effective ‘Revenge Porn’ Law: A Guide for Legislators, End Revenge Porn (Jan. 10, 2015),http://www.endrevengeporn.org/guide-to-legislation/

[3] Revenge Porn: Misery Merchants, The Economist, July 5, 2014, http://www.economist.com/news/international/21606307-how-should-online-publication-explicit-images-without-their-subjects-consent-be.

[4] Complaint, paragraph 5.

[5] See Ariel Ronneberger, Sex, Privacy, and Webpages: Creating a Legal Remedy for Victims of Porn 2.0, 21 Syracuse Sci. & Tech. L. Rep. 1, 10 (2009).

[6] See Danielle Keats Citron & Mary Anne Franks, Criminalizing Revenge Porn, 49 Wake Forest L. Rev. 345 (2014).

[7] Emily Bazelon, Another Sexting Tragedy, Slate, Apr. 12, 2013,http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/audrie_pott_and_rehtaeh_parsons_how_should_the_legal_system_treat_nonconsensual.html.

[8] Danielle Keats Citron, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace (2014).

[9] “Revenge Porn by the numbers,” a survey was conducted 2012-2013 http://www.endrevengeporn.org/revenge-porn-infographic/

[10] Criminal charges have been brought against some operators when other illegal conduct accompanies the posting of images, such as extortion, hacking, child pornography.  See Press Release, Attorney Gen. Kamala D. Harris Issues Statement on Cyber-Exploitation Verdict (Feb. 3, 2015), https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-issues-statement-cyber-exploitation-verdict; Press Release, Two California Men Arrested in E-Mail Hacking Scheme that Yielded Nude Photos that were Posted on ‘Revenge Porn’ Website, FBI L.A. Div. (Jan. 23, 2014), http://www.fbi.gov/losangeles/press-releases/2014/two-california-men-arrested-in-e-mail-hacking-scheme-that-yielded-nude-photos-that-were-posted-on-revenge-porn-website.

[11] These states are:  AL, AZ, CA, CO, DE, ID, IL, HI, GA, MD, NJ, PA, TX, UT, VA, WI.  Arizona Revised Statute 13-1425 is “on hold” due to federal court order. Texas Penal Code 21.15 was partly repealed.  http://www.cagoldberglaw.com/states-with-revenge-porn-laws

[12] Bills are pending in AZ, CT, DC, FL, KY, MA, MO, NM, NY, OR, RI, WA (see Id.)

[13] See In the Matter of Craig Brittain, File No. 132 3120, Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 25, February 26, 2015.

[14] People v Kevin Bollaert , CD252338, Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (decided Feb, 2015), US v Moore et al. California Central District No. 2:12-cr-00917

[15] In the summer of 2014 certain misguided politicians and news sources incorrectly characterized an amendment to New York’s unlawful surveillance laws (Penal Laws 250.45, 250.55, and 250.60) as the introduction of new “revenge porn laws.”  However, these laws are standard “peeping tom” prohibitions that ban surreptitious filming and distribution in that context only.  See Carrie Goldberg, New York Does Not Have a Revenge Porn Law… Yet, Aug. 27, 2014, http://www.cagoldberglaw.com/blog/90340ut34tu

[16] http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2014/2014-ny-slip-op-50193-u.html

[17] See New York Penal Laws 275.00 to 275.45.

[18] Boyle’s bill also adds 250.75 for recidivism within ten years from the first conviction

[19] In its Antigone Books et al v Horne (2014) case in Arizona and in its testimony to the Maryland House Judiciary Committee on HB 43 (January 28, 2014), the ACLU expresses its misguided belief that the law should be limited by a requirement that offenders intend to cause emotional distress or harass.    As expressed by Professor Mary Anne Franks, “The ACLU seems to believe that such intent requirements are necessary to avoid constitutional overbreadth. While constitutional overbreadth is a legitimate concern to raise with regard to any statute that regulates expression, such a concern “must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615 (1973). That is, the mere possibility that a statute could be applied too broadly is not sufficient grounds to invalidate it. The ACLU’s recommendation is all the more strange considering that the ACLU itself, in objecting to federal stalking provisions of the Violence Against Women Act, characterized “intent to cause substantial emotional distress” elements, as well as intent to “harass” or “intimidate” elements, as “unconstitutionally overbroad.” (ACLU, New Expansion of Stalking Law Poses First Amendment Concerns, March 12, 2013). If the ACLU maintains that such language is unconstitutional in the context of stalking laws, one wonders how it can maintain that such language is necessary to ensure the constitutionality of nonconsensual pornography laws.”  See Mary Anne Franks, Footnote 45 at page 20, Atticus (New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers), Volume 27 Number 1, Winter 2015.

[20] Mike Butcher, Valleywag, “Here’s what we know so far about the celebrity photo hack,” September 1, 2014, http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/01/heres-what-we-know-so-far-about-the-celebrity-photo-hack/

[21] Claire Cohen, Telegraph, “#Gamergate:  Victim of video games trolling launches antiharassment network,” January 21, 2015,  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11360204/Gamergate-Zoe-Quinn-launches-anti-harrassment-support-network.html

[22] Sam Biddle, Valleywag “Billionaire tech investor attacked in sext extortion plot” April 24, 2014, http://valleywag.gawker.com/billionaire-tech-investor-attacked-in-sext-extortion-pl-1567051745

[23] Lindsay Bever, The Washington Post, August 13, 2014, “Amid Ferguson protests, hacker collective Anonymous wages cyberwar,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/13/amid-ferguson-protests-anonymous-hacktivists-wage-cyberwar/

[24] Claire Cohen,International Business Times, “Julian Edelman Tinder, Snapchat photo raises questions about revenge porn, online dating safety,” http://www.ibtimes.com/julian-edelman-tinder-snapchat-photo-raises-questions-about-revenge-porn-online-1806730

[25] Revenge Porn by the numbers www.endrevengeporn.org