Photo provided courtesy of Unsplash.com
By Stephanie Wolak, Staff Writer
Imagine you and your roommate are in search of a new third roommate. You interview a nice young man who recently graduated from a respected school, who proceeds to move in. The first few days go well, when all of sudden you start receiving nasty text messages from your new roommate and all of sudden your private diary is posted online. You move back in with your parents to remove yourself from the situation. Then collages of private, intimate photographs of you are posted online. A cellphone number “text spoofing” as your father, starts sending these nude photographs to your father’s co-workers. Multiple false social media accounts pop-up under your name; sending your friends and family child-pornography; and these accounts are inviting men you have never met to come to your home under the belief you are a prostitute for hire. This was a Boston woman’s real life. [1]
“Revenge Porn” is a phrase coined in the past decade to describe victims attacked by the online posting of explicit photos of people without their permission, usually by the victims’ exes. [2] This takes place through a variety of means, including: stalking, blackmail, harassment, defamation, and invasion of privacy. But legally, this is a gray area in the law for restitution for victims. Victims of revenge porn are forced to use traditional legal means of restitution for a very modern legal issue. In recent years, states have started to pass specific laws for the unlawful dissemination of intimate images. Currently, 46 states have passed such laws, with punishments ranging from misdemeanors to felonies with potential jail time. [3]
In July of 2014, Pennsylvania approved 18 PA.C.S. § 3131, for the “Unlawful Dissemination of Intimate Image”. The Act criminalizes the dissemination of a sexually explicit image, of the person in a state of nudity or engaged in sexual conduct, with the intent to harass, annoy, or alarm a current or former intimate partner. When the actor is a minor, it is a first-degree misdemeanor; when the actor is an adult, it is a second-degree misdemeanor. Pennsylvania’s statute does not prevent the victim from filing a civil action to recover damages for loss or injury. [4]
Even with statutes criminalizing attackers, victims still face issues that prevent them from bringing a claim or having successful suits when they do have cause. First, there are jurisdictional issues, as law enforcement is often ill-equipped for online crimes of harassment. Attorney Carrie Goldberg, whose firm specializes in revenge porn suits, has found many police stations do not pursue online harassment complaints because police do not know where the online threats and harassment originate from. [5] > The lack of proof or knowledge of where the attacker is sending the threats from, and whether that electronic device in within that law enforcement’s jurisdiction, prevents the police from taking action.
Second, attackers can be skilled in computer sciences and keep their name and location anonymous, by using “call spoofing” (having different phone numbers appear instead of the true number calling); or spoofing their IP address (alternating their unique identifier within every machine using the internet). Often victims have no legally-sufficient proof of who is the perpetrator but generally know who is the attacker is. A victim, their attorney, or law enforcement must find something that links the person to the electronic device to prove the attacker disseminated the images. In the Boston woman’s case (whose identification was never revealed for privacy reasons), the attacker failed to use a hidden IP address when sending just one threat. This lone, one-time mistake helped her attorneys find his IP address and physical location.
When a victim does have a viable claim, often the issue becomes blamed on the victim, “how did you not see this coming?”; “you should not have dated such a jerk”; “why would you ever take such private photos of yourself?” [6] This dialogue is dangerously similar to that surrounding rape victims. Instead of facing the reality that abusers and attackers have revenge porn as a new tool in their oppressor toolbox, society continues to blame victims. The Boston woman merely chose a new roommate, which exemplifies how this can happen to anyone in today’s modern society.
Under Pennsylvania’s statute, the Boston woman would not have had a claim – as her attacker was not an “intimate partner” as required under the statute. Unfortunately, it appears that criminalizing revenge porn is merely the first step towards justice for its victims.
[1] Carrie Goldberg on Fighting Back Against Psychos & Trolls, Ipse Dixit Podcast, https://shows.pippa.io/ipse-dixit/episodes/carrie-goldberg-on-fighting-back-against-psychos-trolls
[2] Revenge Porn: Laws and Policies, Janet Portman, https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-laws-penalties.htm
[3] 46 States + DC + One Territory Now Have Revenge Porn Laws, https://www.cybercivilrights.org/revenge-porn-laws/
[4] 2014 Act 115, https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2014&sessInd=0&act=115
[5] See generally, C.A.Goldberg, PLLC, https://www.cagoldberglaw.com/, Carrie Goldberg on Fighting Back Against Psychos & Trolls, Ipse Dixit Podcast, https://shows.pippa.io/ipse-dixit/episodes/carrie-goldberg-on-fighting-back-against-psychos-trolls
[6] Revenge porn and the morality police: stop blaming women for being alive, Gabrielle Jackson, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/19/revenge-porn-and-the-morality-police-stop-blaming-women-for-being-alive
