A district court judge has blocked an Arizona “revenge porn” law due to concerns about restrictions it may place on First Amendment rights.
An agreement was reached by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton to prohibit prosecutors from enforcing the law so that publishers, booksellers, librarians and photographers are allowed to use nude photos, for which they may not have written consent, when they represent “newsworthy, artistic, and historical speech,” AZ Family reports.
Previously, prosecutors were allowed to go after “revenge porn” offenders, but these effort have been stopped by the American Civil Liberties Union, which claimed that the statute was too broad and violated First Amendment rights like free speech.
In 2014, the Arizona Legislature passed statute A.R.S. 13-1425, which addressed the unlawful distribution of these types of images. Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, sponsored the bill in hopes of making the distribution of nude photos of a person without their written consent a felony offense.
With this new agreement in place, how should these types of cases be prosecuted? Is free speech more important than a person’s right to privacy?
These are both questions that will have to be answered from case to case as victims of “revenge porn” seek legal help. However, the public should be able to protect both their First Amendment and privacy rights without one being favored over the other.
With technology and social media reaching new heights every day, “revenge porn” is developing into a serious problem, especially as it becomes easier to take, send and distribute photos online in a matter of seconds.
By blocking prosecutors from enforcing the “revenge porn” law altogether, victims of this offense must face humiliation, destroyed intimate relationships as well as potentially limited professional and educational opportunities.
Mesnard introduced a revised version of the law in response to the ACLU’s lawsuit, but it failed in the Senate. He plans to try again during the next legislative session with new elements that could take care of the First Amendment complaints.
The revisions would require prosecutors to prove malicious intent was behind the posting and that the person in the photos had an expectation of privacy when they were taken.
