Techdirt is off for Memorial Day. We'll be back with regularly scheduled posting tomorrow!Hide

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.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    pegr, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 11:43am

    Well said!

    "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.""

    Nail on the head! Perfect explanation!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Apr 16th, 2014 @ 11:44am

    I think everybody should be subpoenaed so the ones retweeting from NJ are properly prosecuted. The best way to make a bad law go is to apply it in it's full glory. I wonder how many thousands would go to jail?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Tim R (profile), Apr 16th, 2014 @ 11:48am

    Retweet

    Of course, one could also argue that a retweet of that nature would violate copyright legislation as well (fair use not withstanding), while we're talking about a nation of prosecutors willing to pile on charges ad infinitum.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Apr 16th, 2014 @ 11:52am

    Also, where's the obligatory NSFW link to the pic Mike?!?! Come on, you know your audience!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    kenichi tanaka (profile), Apr 16th, 2014 @ 11:52am

    Unless you live in New York City, or a state with 'revenge porn laws', retweeting that photo is NOT against the law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 12:00pm

    Is it fair to call it a prohibition on revenge porn when the law prohibits acts that have nothing to do with revenge? Posting porn without permission should be a tort, not a crime.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Apr 16th, 2014 @ 12:00pm

    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..."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 12:02pm

    Re:

    They'll argue that, since it might have been read by someone in these jurisdictions, the 'revenge porn laws' apply.

    Yes, even if you are not a US citizen and live in another country.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Honest Abe, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 12:22pm

    Soft Landings.

    Does copyright trump the First Amendment?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 12:22pm

    If the federal law passes, there goes tumblr.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 12:29pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    MAFIAA troll, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 1:09pm

    Re: Soft Landings.

    Ummm... Yes

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 1:12pm

    Don't they have to go after USAir since they forwarded the image in the first place?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 1:27pm

    Re: Retweet

    Hey, why not...

    She looks like she is threatening to crash a plane into a hole... sounds like terrorism to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    theaardvark, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 1:30pm

    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"?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Vic, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 1:57pm

    That's pretty broad description. I mean a mouth could also be an "intimate part"! In that case practically all photographers taking pictures of people are screwed!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 2:45pm

    If you are not in New Jersey, you are not subject to it's laws. And Tiwtter users outside the U.S. are only subject to the laws of whatever country they are tweeting from, and New Jersey laws do not apply to them.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 3:07pm

    Re:

    The DoJ got shot down just last week over something that didn't happen in New Jersey:

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 7:21pm

    Mr Masnick, have you read what you wrote? Where exactly do you see violation of quoted statue?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 16th, 2014 @ 11:31pm

    Re:

    You've obviously not heard of a guy called Kim Dotcom, have you?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 1:18am

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 17th, 2014 @ 2:22pm

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    beltorak (profile), Apr 17th, 2014 @ 3:36pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    original consent doesn't matter:

    > 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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    DSG72 (profile), Apr 22nd, 2014 @ 2:04pm

    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_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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Njsucks, Jun 22nd, 2014 @ 7:13am

    Re: Well said!

    The Constitution has no power in the Peoples Republic of Nj

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Chat
Techdirt Reading List
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.