Your body is not somebody else’s entertainment
At C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, we are the national leader for victims of revenge porn and other image-based sexual abuse.
Get in TouchAt C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, we are the national leader for victims of revenge porn and other image-based sexual abuse.
Get in TouchWhen we started our firm in 2014, only three states criminally outlawed revenge porn, there were dozens of websites monetizing it and charging victims money to remove their pictures, our biggest social media companies didn’t ban it, and victims’ naked images populated the first dozen pages of their Google results. Back then, underage victims were suspended for “conduct unbecoming” – and sometimes even arrested for creating child pornography of themselves. Women would get fired and shamed publicly.
This firm was critical in changing ALL of that.
We’ve represented over 1000 victims of image-based abuse – getting our clients millions in damages, orders of protection, criminal prosecution, and sometimes just those pics taken off the $%&*ing internet. We know exactly what to do.
“Revenge porn” is a term often used for the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images (also called NDII) or Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA) Material. The name itself is a misnomer, however. Use of the word “revenge” implies that the victim did something to warrant a retaliation. Victims never deserve it. Plus, revenge may not have played a role at all. There are many cases in which the offender distributes the images to harass, scare, shame, boast, out of boredom, for money, the thrill of the hack, for the “lulz” or for no apparent reason at all.
There is a lot victims can do on their own if somebody posted intimate or naked photos of them.
A few more thoughts:
Nonconsensual pornography is not a new phenomenon, but the Internet has brought it to the masses with a cottage industry of websites dedicated to displaying naked pictures of people without consent, and a surge in hobbyists collecting nudes for sport, hunting and hacking for them, and displaying them like trophy kills. Dedicated revenge porn sites and other forums invite users to upload naked images of their exes for millions of people to view. As many as 3,000 websites feature revenge porn. Indeed there is a market of depraved individuals who seek out revenge porn and get some sort of sexual gratification out of knowing the women were made into porn stars without their consent. Visitors to these sites are frequently not content to merely view the material, but often also viciously harass the subjects depicted, and make crude commentary about victims’ bodies, theorizing about their promiscuity and sexual health. To make the victims’ identity unmistakable, websites often post personal information about the victims (e.g. full name, age, address, employer, e-mail address, social media screenshots, social security number, school, etc.) alongside the images. Consumers frequently interpret this information as an invitation to engage in unsolicited contact with victims. They encourage one another to unearth and publish even more intimate images and personal details about the victims, prying into their personal lives and sometimes hacking into e-mail accounts in this quest. In addition to publishing revenge porn on websites for strangers to consume, some offenders post pictures and videos on mainstream porn websites or alongside sex ads impersonating the victim. Others transmit the material directly to those close to the victims through email or text or direct message. Sometimes the offender copies the victim’s list of Facebook friends and sends the images or links to the images to all of those people. Or they post it publicly on social media platforms linked to the victims, such as her Facebook or Instagram page, or on Twitter. Still others go to even further trouble and create entire websites devoted to their victim and then send her family members the link.
We still live in a society where victims are judged for taking nude pictures. However, there is nothing wrong or abnormal with sharing naked pictures within the context of a trusting relationship. A study on Upworthy showed that 50% of American adults sext and 70% admitted to having received a nude photo. If you are a victim of revenge porn, chances are you already feel awful enough; there is nothing right about somebody judging you on top of it. Anybody who does should be scolded and reminded that just as we don’t judge victims of other non-consensual crimes for, say, drinking too much, flirting with the wrong guy, staying out too late, or wearing too skimpy an outfit, we can’t judge victims of revenge porn for taking the image. Or, as John Oliver said, it’s not like we tell people who have been robbed, “If you don’t want to get burgled, don’t live in a house.”
A significant percentage of people who distribute nude images without consent first threaten to do so. Surprisingly, the threat to distribute can be criminal — even in states that don’t have dedicated revenge porn criminal laws. Criminal coercion laws are triggered if somebody demands that you do something you have the legal right to abstain from or demands that you abstain from something you have the legal right to do. Coercion laws require that the offender assert control by instilling fear in the victims, and by stating that if the demand is not complied with, the offender will cause injury, property damage, criminal conduct, accuse you or a third party of a crime, expose a secret that subjects the victim to hatred/contempt/ridicule, cause harm to a victim’s health, safety, business, finances, reputation, or personal relationships, etc.
In the context of revenge porn, offenders often threaten to release the images if the victim ends the relationship. Or the offender may threaten to release the images if the victim does not provide different or more graphic ones or agree to other sexual favors.
In addition to the criminal laws, we can use civil law to address the threat to distribute images. If the victim was in an intimate relationship with the offender, we can seek a temporary order of protection in family court or sue for an injunction in civil court restraining the offender from distributing the image. We can also send a cease and desist letter to the offender informing him of the criminal and civil repercussions of his actions.
It’s illegal to film sex without the knowledge or consent of participants. It is also illegal to photograph individuals in intimate settings in a state of undress without their knowledge or consent. There have been some high profile cases that involve hidden cameras or stealth recording devices that were installed unbeknownst to victims. Sometimes these images wind up on the Internet and the images themselves are evidence of the crime. In addition to pursuing criminal proceedings, victims can sue in civil court for the damages they suffered as a result of the privacy invasion.
Defamation is a blanket term for a statement that injures someone’s reputation. Written defamation is called “libel.” Spoken defamation is called “slander.” In almost all states, defamation is not a crime. However, a defamed person can sue the defamer. The public perception of what constitutes “defamation” is quite different from the legal definition. This causes disappointment for many would-be litigants. In a defamation lawsuit, the defamed person must prove that there’s been a statement that is all of the following: 1) published, 2) false, 3) injurious, and 4) unprivileged.
Defamation is a blanket term for a statement that injures someone’s reputation. Written defamation is called “libel.” Spoken defamation is called “slander.” In almost all states, defamation is not a crime. However, a defamed person can sue the defamer. The public perception of what constitutes “defamation” is quite different from the legal definition. This causes disappointment for many would-be litigants. In a defamation lawsuit, the defamed person must prove that there’s been a statement that is all of the following: 1) published, 2) false, 3) injurious, and 4) unprivileged.
Importantly, the statement must be false. Even if the statement is incredibly mean or nasty, if it looks like an opinion, it is not defamation. The plaintiff must prove that it is objectively false. Truth is always a defense in a defamation lawsuit.
A great deal of defamation happens online, especially with anonymous lies about a person’s sexual health, infidelity, criminal record. Online service providers generally can’t be held liable for content that user’s post. They can, however, be asked to remove defamatory content and can be subpoenaed to provide user information (e.g. IP address, etc) about the person who posted the information.
Remember: if it’s true, it’s not defamation, though it may trigger different invasion of privacy claims, depending on the state where the case will be brought. An attorney can figure out the best way of addressing your situation to get you the best possible outcome.
The Internet has made it very easy to impersonate another person. Sometimes offenders create social media accounts in the victim’s name and then interact in humiliating ways with the victim’s friends and family, such as by sending naked photos or propositioning people for sex. Other times, offenders impersonate the victim and create ads on Craigslist or Backpage soliciting sex and providing personal information encouraging strangers to come to the victim’s home or workplace expecting sex. Still others purchase websites with a URL containing the victim’s name and use that to post embarrassing images and statements about the victim. Online impersonation can create very real offline risks. It is important to report this criminal conduct. Additionally, victims should proactively report impersonation on the online platform where it occurs.
Civil remedies are also available in impersonation situations. We may be able to seek restraining orders in family court. If the impersonation is happening anonymously, and there is no criminal case, it likely will be necessary to initiate a civil case to subpoena the online service provider in efforts to de-anonymize the offender.
Common scenarios involve victims who meet a stranger in a chatroom or on social media. Over a period of time the stranger earns the victim’s trust and gets the victim to send nude images or strip via webcams. After nude images are sent, the stranger then reveals himself to be of malicious intent and threatens to distribute the images to the victim’s friends, families, and employers if the victim does not provide more, pay money, or perform sexual favors. Underage victims are often the prey of sextortion schemes. Sometimes the offender is known to the victim, such as in situations when a pimp threatens to distribute naked images when a sex trafficking victim tries to leave the business.
Through a swift and coordinated plan of attack, we can stop a privacy violation before it goes viral. Or if it already has, our law office will rein it in using every tool at our disposal. Depending on your specific circumstances, we’ll attack the problem through:
C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, has provided direct advice to scores of victims of revenge porn and other cyberprivacy invasions. From simple referrals to complex litigation, from cease and desist letters to restraining orders, C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, customizes its advocacy and representation to what is appropriate under the circumstances. Carrie has lectured about revenge porn and cyber civil rights at the New York City Bar Association, Vassar College, and various law schools. Carrie is a board member at the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative and its End Revenge Porn campaign. In 2014–15 she wrote “Criminal Distribution of Nonconsensual Pornography: A Primer for Law Enforcement.” In February, 2015, she was appointed to California Attorney General Kamala Harris’ Cyber Exploitation Working Group. She has weighed in on several revenge porn state laws, including Washington State, Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York. In February 2015, she wrote the Federal Trade Commission public comment on behalf of CCRI and Not Without My Consent in the Matter of Craig Brittain.
C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, is the country’s first law firm dedicated to justice for victims catastrophically injured by human maniacs and inhumane tech platforms. Since 2014, we’ve been at the forefront shutting down some of the worst humans and platforms (e.g. Harvey Weinstein, Omegle, GirlsDoPorn) and have litigated some of the most influential cases – against Amazon, Snap, Meta – reining in the tech companies that thought they were above the law.
Get in Touch