NY State's New Revenge Porn Law Will Likely Be Effective
Technology is almost always a step or two ahead of the law, and that gives the criminal element a bit of a head start. Until the law catches up, those who would misuse technology often get a free pass.
October 01, 2019 at 10:37 AM
4 minute read
Technology is almost always a step or two ahead of the law, and that gives the criminal element a bit of a head start. Until the law catches up, those who would misuse technology often get a free pass.
Such was the case in Manhattan a few years ago when a spurned boyfriend posted naked pictures of his former girlfriend to social media and added injury to insult by sending the images to her employer and sister, all without her consent. That's wrong by any standard of decency.
But it wasn't specifically illegal, and a Manhattan judge had no choice but to dismiss criminal charges against the alleged perpetrator. The district attorney simply couldn't find a law that directly addressed the conduct at issue–the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images or what is colloquially described as "revenge porn"—so there was nothing law enforcement could do about it.
Those days are presumably gone.
On July 23, Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law a bill making this form of cyber sexual abuse a Class A misdemeanor. It took effect on Sept. 21.
New York State was way behind in enacting such a law—45 other states beat us to it—but ours is unique in that it not only criminalizes the conduct but also empowers victims to seek a court order forcing a website to remove the offending image. That's key. Creating a new crime will hopefully deter and punish such conduct, but it does little to mitigate the damage or stop the continuing humiliation.
And the damage is substantial.
One survey found that one in 10 former partners threaten to post intimate images of an ex-partner, and 60 percent of them actually do. A study by the Cyber Rights Initiative found that 47 percent of revenge porn victims have contemplated suicide. Victims tend to be re-victimized in perpetuity and subjected to endless harassment and stalking. Some have lost their jobs, others were forced to leave school or change schools. Teenage girls are especially susceptible to suicide, anorexia and other mental illnesses triggered by cyber sexual abuse.
And, until now, there was precious little the justice system could do about it. Victims could sue the perpetrator, of course. But unless the offender happened to have significant assets, a lawsuit often wasn't worth the trouble and expense. States, starting with New Jersey back in 2004, reacted to the revenge porn trend by enacting criminal laws. But a number were struck down by the courts, mostly on free speech grounds.
Over the past several years, legislatures have been engaged in a trial-and-error effort to draft a law that is both effective and constitutional, and some have been more successful than others. New York State, albeit late to the party, had the advantage of learning what worked elsewhere (including some municipalities such as New York City that enacted local laws) and what did not, and hopefully crafted a statute with the teeth to stand up against the perpetrators, and the foundation to withstand the constitutional challenges that are sure to come. Time will tell.
As Governor Cuomo said when signing the measure, "Our laws have not kept pace with technology and how abusers can use it to harass, intimidate and humiliate intimate partners." Unfortunately, our laws will never keep pace with technology, and as a society, all we can do is react to the ever-ingenious and devious ways some people find to hurt each other.
Gail Prudenti is dean and executive director of the Center for Children, Families and the Law at Hofstra University Maurice A. Dean School of Law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAttorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
3 minute readLetter to the Editor: Law Journal Used Misleading Photo for Article on Election Observers
1 minute readNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DC Circuit Revives Firefighters' Religious Freedom Litigation in Facial Hair Policy Row
- 2‘High Demand’: Former Trump Admin Lawyers Leverage Connections for Big Law Work, Jobs
- 3Considerations for Establishing or Denying a Texas Partnership to Invest in Real Estate
- 4In-House AI Adoption Stalls Despite Rising Business Pressures
- 5Texas Asks Trump DOJ to Reject Housing Enforcement
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250