Revenge Porn 3.0
New York state's enactment of Penal Law §245.15, criminalizing revenge porn, and its civil analog, §52-b of the New York Civil Rights Law, was a major step in the right direction of protecting the privacy and freedom from abuse and harassment of targeted victims, but now comes the real test of the law in the crucible of the courtroom.
October 24, 2022 at 12:00 PM
12 minute read
Columns"Revenge porn" has been around for a long time. Before computers existed, it was referred to as extortion, blackmail, coercion, stalking or harassment. Offenders threatened their intimate partners with pictures they had taken of their private moments together, but the harm was limited by the available technology. Then the world changed forever with the Internet and online virtual existence. In 2014, the New York City Criminal Court defined revenge porn simply as "sexually explicit media that is publicly shared online without the consent of the pictured individual." People v. Barber, 42 Misc. 3d 1225(A) (Crim. Ct., NY Co. Feb. 18, 2014; Dkt. No. 2013NY059761). After years of legislative stutter steps, on July 23, 2019, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law the bill making revenge porn, a form of cyber sexual abuse, a class "A" misdemeanor, effective Sept. 21, 2019. The crime of revenge porn was codified as Penal Law §245.15, entitled Unlawful dissemination or publication of an intimate image, along with its civil analog, authorizing a private right of action providing victims with a civil remedy per §52-b of the New York Civil Rights Law.
At the time of the signing the law, the Governor opined that he had advocated for outlawing revenge porn as part of his fight to combat sexual violence in all its forms and referred to it as "disgusting and insidious behavior, which can follow victims around their entire lives," having no place in New York State. See, e.g., Denis Slattery, New York lawmakers finally pass long-stalled 'revenge porn' bill, New York Daily News (Feb. 28, 2019); Michael Gormley, Gov. Cuomo signs legislation to outlaw revenge porn, Newsday (July 23, 2019). This article will address the last three years of the budding development of New York state's revenge porn law in the courts.
This content has been archived.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 AllAbsent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages
10 minute readA Time for Action: Attorneys Must Answer MLK's Call to Defend Bar Associations and Stand for DEI Initiatives in 2025
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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