Getting justice for victims of revenge porn
An academic has called for an amendment to a major US law to help victims of revenge porn: the online posting of nude or sexually explicit photographs or videos of a former lover without his or her consent.
Writing in the journal Information and Communications Technology Law, Allison Tungate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law explains how unintended consequences of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act make it nearly impossible for victims of revenge porn to get what they want most: the offending images removed from public view.
The Act provides blanket immunity for website operators and Internet Service Providers that feature user-generated content. Thus even if victims make operators and ISPs aware of the “involuntary pornography” posted on their sites, no duty exists for them to remove it.
Because the law effectively makes only the posters of offensive content culpable, Tungate notes that “victims of revenge porn are faced with mountainous hurdles in order to seek any form of justice”, including pursuing actions for invasion of privacy, breach of copyright or even the breaking of “implied or express contracts of confidentiality”. Robust new criminal laws in New Jersey, California and New York target those who post such images, but still cannot oblige ISPs to act.
Tungate does not argue that Section 230 is itself a bad law (“Without Section 230 immunity, sites like YouTube and Reddit, which largely consist of user-generated content, would cease to exist”), but that it must be modified. “Because of the growing pervasiveness of revenge porn,” she concludes, “lawmakers have an obligation to amend Section 230 of the CDA to protect victims and mitigate the harms stemming from the public disclosure of such private information.”
Tungate outlines her proposed amendment, which would include a firm definition of what constitutes revenge porn and obligatory “takedown” procedures once notice is given to ISPs. She also counters potential objections, including those pertaining to freedom of speech (“Revenge porn, because of its harmful and detrimental effects on society, is well outside the protections of the First Amendment”).
“The line between our Internet activities and real world activities is growing thinner as technology progresses,” she writes. “Thus, there is an increasing need of laws that will protect both our ‘online’ lives and ‘real world’ lives.” Most victims of revenge porn would certainly agree.
Bare necessities: the argument for a ‘revenge porn’ exception in Section 230 immunity
Allison Tungate
Information & Communications Technology Law
* Read the full article online: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13600834.2014.916936#.U_xNAvldVZA
Visit our newsroom at: http://newsroom.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/
Follow us on Twitter @tandfnewsroom
For more information please contact:
Melissa Phillips, Marketing Coordinator
Email : Melissa.phillips@tandf.co.uk
-----------------------------------------
About Taylor & Francis Group
-----------------------------------------
Taylor & Francis Group partners with researchers, scholarly societies, universities and libraries worldwide to bring knowledge to life. As one of the world’s leading publishers of scholarly journals, books, ebooks and reference works our content spans all areas of Humanities, Social Sciences, Behavioural Sciences, Science, and Technology and Medicine.
From our network of offices in Oxford, New York, Philadelphia, Boca Raton, Boston, Melbourne, Singapore, Beijing, Tokyo, Stockholm, New Delhi and Johannesburg, Taylor & Francis staff provide local expertise and support to our editors, societies and authors and tailored, efficient customer service to our library colleagues.
Tags: