by using hidden cameras, hacking phones, or recording sexual assaults) as well as images consensually obtained within the context of an intimate relationship.
Nonconsensual pornography transforms unwilling individuals into sexual entertainment for strangers.
Most suits stand little chance of success because so many defendants are judgment-proof – that is, they don’t have the financial resources to satisfy a judgment.
If a certain form of expression is protected by the First Amendment, it would not be constitutionally permissible for any law, civil or criminal, to regulate it.
Nonconsensual pornography can destroy victims’ intimate relationships, as well as their educational and employment opportunities.
Victims are routinely threatened with sexual assault, stalked, harassed, fired from jobs, and forced to change schools. Nonconsensual pornography is frequently a form of domestic violence, as abusers threaten to expose intimate pictures to prevent a partner from exiting a relationship, reporting abuse, or obtaining custody of children.
“Intent to harass” and “intent to cause distress” clauses, however, are the offender disclosed the material.
“Intent to harass/distress” provisions would render a law both incoherent and vulnerable to constitutional attack.