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
© 2024 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
- 1From 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Rollercoaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
- 2Critical Mass With Law.com’s Amanda Bronstad: Why Jurors in California Failed to Reach Verdict Over Zantac, Bankruptcy Judge Tables Sanctions Against Beasley Allen Attorney
- 3Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
- 4Elections Have Consequences: Some Thoughts on Labor and Employment Law Topics in 2025 and Beyond
- 5Law Firm Associates, Staffers Continue to Put a Premium On Workplace Flexibility, Study Finds
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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