Did You Retweet The USAir Pornographic Tweet? You May Have Violated New Jersey's Revenge Porn Law
from the oops dept
We've pointed out for a while how the various attempts at creating revenge porn bills will have serious unintended consequences and raise serious First Amendment issues. This is not to minimize the problems of revenge porn (or to absolve the sick and depraved individuals who put together, submit to or regularly visit such sites). However, it's to point out that pretty much any way you try to legislate such actions as criminal likely will create other problems. For example, I'm sure many of you heard the story recently about US Airways... um... unfortunate pornographic tweet. It was the story of the internet a few days ago, in which a United Air social media employee did a very unfortunate cut and paste error, tweeting out a very graphic image that involved a naked woman and a plane where it... doesn't quite belong (for slightly lighter fare, I highly recommend reading some of the of the funny replies to that tweet). For what it's worth, US Air has said that it was an honest mistake and it's not even firing the person responsible.What does any of this have to do with revenge porn? Well, not a whole lot, other than to note, as lawyer Scott Greenfield did, if you retweeted the picture, there's a good chance you violated criminal revenge porn laws. And that's true -- though it's really specific to one law, right now, which is New Jersey's. California has a revenge porn law too, but it's much more limited and likely wouldn't apply here. New Jersey's law on the other hand includes this:
An actor commits a crime of the third degree if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he discloses any photograph, film, videotape, recording or any other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual penetration or sexual contact, unless that person has consented to such disclosure. For purposes of this subsection, "disclose" means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer.Even if the original photograph was done "consensually" note that you need consent for that specific disclosure. In other words, if you retweeted that image, you probably violated New Jersey criminal laws.
And, yes, it seems likely that the expected introduction of a federal anti-revenge porn bill will include a similar provision. It's already been stated that law professor Mary Anne Franks is helping draft the legislation, and her draft legislation relies heavily on New Jersey's. Here's one version of her draft legislation:
An actor commits a crime if he knowingly discloses a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or other reproduction of the image of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual contact, when the actor knows or should have known that the person depicted did not consent to such disclosure and under circumstances in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. A person who has consented to the capture or possession of an image within the context of a private or confidential relationship retains a reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to disclosure beyond that relationship.Franks' bill does include some exceptions, and she might argue that this might qualify under the exception for "disclosures that serve a bona fide and lawful public purpose," though that leaves the person retweeting the image in the unenviable position of defending that retweeting a major US airline accidentally tweeting a photo of a woman with a model plane stuck up her vagina is somehow "a bona fide and lawful public purpose." Of course, that's part of why we have the First Amendment, because we don't want people to have to defend why the particular speech they're making has a "bona fide and lawful public purpose." Instead, we recognize that making people have to defend the intent of their speech likely has chilling effects.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: mary anne franks, new jersey, retweeting, revenge porn, social media
Companies: twitter, us airways
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Well said!
Nail on the head! Perfect explanation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well said!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retweet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Retweet
She looks like she is threatening to crash a plane into a hole... sounds like terrorism to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, even if you are not a US citizen and live in another country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Soft Landings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Soft Landings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Permutations
So, if the NJ AG tries to go after one, he has to actually go after many, just so no one feels left out.
This will bring many to many filing fees to the State of NJ and is therefore profitable. It could lead to a new measure of AG competence, state income growth rate through extortion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140411/09344626881/appeals-court-reverses-weev-conviction -incorrect-venue-avoids-bigger-cfaa-questions.shtml
Who's to say they, or NJ learned the lesson.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Yes, I have.
Where exactly do you see violation of quoted statue?
It says you're a criminal if you "transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit" "a photograph" "of another person whose intimate parts are exposed or who is engaged in an act of sexual contact, when the actor knows or should have known that the person depicted did not consent to such" when the person has not consented to that specific move to "transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit" that photograph.
So, yes, that's where people violated the statute. Did you not read it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Again, Mr Masnick: who among retweeting persons knew that the woman on picture did not consent? Looks to me like pic was lifted from porn site by an airline employee. Therefore, woman likely consented originally. There is also issue of NJ state jurisdiction.
I would say, at this point, probability of prior knowledge, is zero. To the contrary: it could have been safely assumed by retweeters, that porn pic was consented to while making it. Thus, your title is misleading hype.
Please, read before you write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> Even if the original photograph was done "consensually" note that you need consent for that specific disclosure. In other words, if you retweeted that image, you probably violated New Jersey criminal laws.
Please, read before you write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you all forgotten about CDA 230?
Not so fast. I realize that probably 99% of people don't understand this, but the CDA (47 USC 230) precludes not only civil liability, but it also bars criminal liability under state law in precisely this context. Yes, the statute has a section heading that says: "No effect on criminal law..." but that addresses only certain aspects of FEDERAL criminal law. State criminal laws are absolutely preempted by the CDA if they seek to punish a user for "publishing" content from another third party. See, e.g., Backpage.com, LLC v. McKenna, 881 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (W.D.Wash 2012)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1859109590878296312&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_v is=1&oi=scholarr
Although most of these types of cases deal with website owners attempting to avoid criminal liability under the CDA, the logic applies to users in exactly the same way. This is so because the CDA applies equally to both PROVIDERS and USERS of interactive computer services.
So, bottom line -- sorry, but there is absolutely no exposure to criminal liability under New Jersey or any other state law for retweeting something like this. Mike Masnik is an Internet god, but this time he made the mistake of trusting the legal analysis of someone who doesn't know what he's talking about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]