SUPREME COURT
Court could hear revenge porn case
Deanna Paul
Washington Post
When Bethany Austin learned that her fiance had been unfaithful in late May 2016, she ended the seven-year relationship and called off their upcoming wedding.
He told the couple’s friends that Austin was “crazy.” To set the record straight, Austin sent their families a fourpage letter that contained text messages between her ex and his mistress and nude photos of the woman.
Austin was promptly charged with a felony for violating Illinois’ revenge porn law, known as “nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images.” In return, she argued that the law was an unconstitutional restriction of her freedom of speech.
Legislation criminalizing nonconsensual pornography has gained traction in much of the country. Forty-six states and Washington, D.C., have passed revenge porn laws over the past decade, and appeals courts across the country are beginning to take up cases involving the constitutionality of “revenge porn” statutes on First Amendment grounds.
The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to hear a case on the issue, but Austin’s could be the first.
The Constitution protects freedom of speech, even when it is “offensive or disagreeable.” But rules have exceptions; the First Amendment does not protect certain speech, such as threats, obscenity, incitement of violence and public disclosure of private information.
Two years after Austin’s arrest, the Illinois trial court dismissed the charge, but the Illinois Supreme Court, in a 5-to-2 decision handed down in October, reversed its decision and ruled that distributing private sexual images without permission was not constitutionally protected free speech. The state’s revenge porn law, it said, was aimed not at prohibiting certain speech, but at protecting privacy.
