If you post revenge porn in Massachusetts, you could face a $10,000 fine and up to five years in a federal prison. Yesterday, the Baker-Polito administration unveiled the “Act Relative to the Harmful Distribution of Sexually Explicit Visual Material.” This bill specifically combats the problem of vengeful ex-lovers posting sexual pictures or videos of their former partners online. Similar legislation specifically addressing revenge porn has been enacted in 35 states. Prior to the introduction of this to this bill, revenge porn was not taken into legislative consideration. In a letter to the state legislature, Baker wrote, “We have laws punishing the non-consensual recording of sexually explicit images of unsuspecting people.” He went on to say, “our laws do not address, however, when a person takes a sexually explicit image or recording that was lawfully obtained and then distributes it with the intent to harm the person depicted and without that person’s consent.” This legislation is necessary because it sets the cultural precedent that distributing revenge porn is unacceptable, however, the efficacy of this legislation remains to be seen.
The bill in its current form tracks closely with the guidelines set forth by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. This group is trying to dissuade lawmakers from including language that requires prosecutors to prove intent to cause harm. Necessitating a victim to prove intent to cause harm would present an additional barrier to justice for the victim. Furthermore, revenge porn is harmful in nature, only being posted with the intent of harming the reputation of the individual photographed.
Regardless of the bill’s content, policing revenge porn has a unique set of challenges. If an individual posts revenge porn on their personal website a judge can order the photo or video to be removed or deleted. However, if that same individual distributes the revenge porn content to a third-party website, it is nearly impossible for a judge to order the removal or deletion of such content. Hopefully, if passed, the law would disincentivize individuals from posting revenge porn in the first place.
Addressing revenge porn directly is not the sole purpose of this bill, nor is it the only point of legislative innovation. This bill also addresses the problem of minors distributing pornographic images to other minors. Under existing legislation, minors guilty of sexting could potentially face child pornography charges. However, in the proposed legislation, judges will have the option to refer minors to an “educational diversion program.” This will protect minors from criminal penalties and having to register as sex offenders.
This legislation is positive because it acknowledges the realities and nuances of sending pornographic images. It’s 2017, sending nudes is a common aspect of sexual relationships and is part of our culture. However, circulating sexual pictures has the potential to cause an extreme amount of damage to an individual’s career prospects, reputation and dignity. The government should do their part to protect individuals who are victims of their vengeful exes. The government is our primary social control and thus has the obligation to disincentivize revenge porn.
However, government intervention certainly has its limitations especially because revenge porn isn’t addressed at a federal level. Federal legislation addressing revenge porn would be a strong step forward. The precedent for federal legislation certainly exists as over half of the states in the nation already have laws that specifically target revenge porn.
In the case of legislation combating revenge porn, the spirit of the law might be more important than the letter of the law. Massachusetts’ bill sends the cultural message that distributing revenge porn is morally reprehensible. This is especially clear in its attempts to minimize the penalties minors face for sexting. It is unlikely that this law can help individuals who have already fallen victim to revenge porn. Hopefully if passed, it will make potential offenders think twice before damaging the reputation of their former partners.
