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.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: twitter, us airways

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Did You Retweet The USAir Pornographic Tweet? You May Have Violated New Jersey's Revenge Porn Law”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
25 Comments
John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The government has taken the stance that websites operating outside the US and doing business with US citizens are subject to US laws. If that continues to hold water, then we have to change your statement to “Unless you live in New York City, or a state with ‘revenge porn laws’, or you tweet to someone who lives in such a state…”

Anonymous Anonymous Coward says:

Permutations

I don’t use twitter, so no first hand knowledge. It seems to me that twitter is both a one to one and a one to many system and that re-tweets would necessarily apply in a sort of many to many way.

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.

theaardvark (profile) says:

Consent

As I understand it, this image was originally posted to an amateur porn site. If that posting was done by the subject of the picture or by her consent then could it not be argued that she such fall under “”disclose” means sell, manufacture, give, provide, lend, trade, mail, deliver, transfer, publish, distribute, circulate, disseminate, present, exhibit, advertise or offer”?

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Mr Masnick, have you read what you wrote?

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

“when the actor knows or should have known that the person depicted did not consent to such”

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.

DSG72 (profile) says:

Have you all forgotten about CDA 230?

Hey guys — what am I missing here? The entire premise of this article is wrong. The assumption is that if you are a user of an interactive computer service (i.e., Twitter) and you retweet content from another information content provider, you can be held criminally liable for doing so.

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_vis=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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...