Child Pornography Laws Stand No Chance Against Deepfakes

Child Pornography and Revenge Pornography Laws Stand No Chance Against Deepfakes

Eryn Yuen

Abstract

Deepfake technology is fast approaching a threshold where it will be impossible to discern whether videos are real or computer-generated. This poses a dilemma as proponents of Free Speech have fiercely advocated against its regulation. However, along with the rise in concern of revenge pornography, Deepfake technology further complicates the issue by making it possible for one to falsify pornographic content of a person. This may lead to severe trauma and professional consequences for unsuspecting victims. Deepfake technology has recently been given some boundaries; for example, Deepfake child pornography has been deemed federally obscene, but current laws make it difficult for adult victims of Deepfake revenge pornography to protect themselves. This article first traces the history of legislation against child pornography and revenge pornography, identifying individual rights that protect potential victims as well as the rights many are using to advocate against increased legislation. It then moves on to discuss these rights in the context of newfound Deepfake technology and creates recommendations for increased legislation.

Introduction

Deepfake technology is advancing at a rapid rate. Hao Li, a Deepfake developer and researcher, believes ultra-realistic imaging that is indistinguishable from real life will be available to the public within the next year.1 This has raised significant concern over Deepfake pornography, where an existing or fictional person’s face is incorporated into pornographic videos, replacing the original porn performer. Without having ever taken or recorded an intimate photograph or video, highly realistic and compromising footage of both adults and children could be rapidly distributed across the web. As this technology becomes easily accessible to the average person, there seems to be no limits to the production of nonconsensual pornographic content, either real or computer-generated. Nonconsensual porn is more commonly known as “revenge porn,” and includes the distribution of sexually explicit material without the consent of those within the images.2 Currently, nonconsensual porn distribution is regulated by state while the distribution of child pornography, which is inherently nonconsensual, is criminalized on a federal level. As nonconsensual pornography evolves to include the application of individuals over existing pornographic material, technology now allows for one to create pornographic images of individuals who have never had lewd photos taken of them, either by others or by themselves. The main human right that has caused the most difficulty for the regulation of any form of pornography historically has been the right of free speech, as proven by the arduous journey it took to confirm child pornography and revenge porn as not constitutionally protected. Legislation criminalizing child pornography, both real and fictitious, was established in 2003 through Title V of the PROTECT Act,3 but the efforts it took to reach this point was a lot more difficult than one might expect since child pornography is generally recognized to be morally unacceptable. In this paper, I will trace the history of legislation with child pornography and nonconsensual pornography to show the current legislation against Deepfake pornography is insufficient. For the purposes of this paper, I will use the phrase “nonconsensual porn” interchangeably with “revenge porn.” I will only address Deepfakes that use real people rather than computer generated people and will only discuss legislation within the United States. Lastly, I will argue that nonconsensual pornography and Deepfake pornography should be federally criminalized. As it stands, First Amendment rights too strongly impose on regulating different forms of nonconsensual pornography discrediting the undeniable harm that is attached to it.

Legislation Background

Overall, it is very difficult to prove to the court that content-based restrictions are valid, and in order for claims against free speech to be legitimized, it needs to pass strict scrutiny. Strict scrutiny is the highest form of judicial review that courts use to evaluate whether or not laws

are constitutional.4 This standard is used specifically with laws pertaining to fundamental rights, including anything listed in the First Amendment, and suspect class, which includes race, nationality, religion, and alienage. Due to this high burden of proof that is placed on laws regarding the right of free speech, the criminalization of child pornography and revenge porn was and has been unbelievably difficult. Many believe that the existing revenge porn and child pornography laws are sufficient, but as we approach a new age of computer-generated pornography, it is easy to see that victims will be grossly under-protected. Child Pornography The first major case that set limits on First Amendment rights was Schenck vs. USin 1919, which allowed the government to limit speech when there was “clear and present danger.”5 Many called this decision a disaster, as it allowed the government to convict protesters for opposing America’s World War I involvement, but it started the push and pull of the court in deciding what level of free speech needed to be protected and what should be deemed exceptions. Brandenburg v. Ohioin 1969 was the first case that significantly and immediately affected child pornography legislation, placing many limits on the government’s bandwidth to ban child pornography. Essentially, the case blocked the government from intervening unless they could prove the speech would likely produce “imminent law violation.”6 The “clear and present danger” test from Schenck v. USwas rendered useless as a bar against child pornography; this test essentially demanded that the court prove that one would be immediately inclined to assault a child after watching child pornography. However, the previously established Chaplinsky v. New Hampshirein 1942 opened a few doors in limiting speech. Although it came before Brandenburg, its language limiting the burden of proof “lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the other insulting or ‘fighting words’” to not require proof of imminent harm would eventually allow for the government to label child pornography as not protected under the First Amendment. This connection was not made until 1973 in Miller v. California, which categorized “hard core pornography” as “obscenity” under the Chaplinsky case.7 The suppression of child pornography took a long span of time, requiring many cases to finally narrow down far enough for Millerto label “hard core” pornography as obscene. During this time where child pornography was protected under First Amendment rights, the industry was given a lot of time to expand and flourish, despite the majority of states taking the opportunity to legislate soon after Miller .

8 Although child pornography has now been banned for a while, it is no secret that it is still a lucrative business that has largely gone undetected and unpunished. Revenge Pornography Revenge porn is defined as sexual material, both video or images, of an individual that are shared without their consent in order to cause humiliation, embarrassment, or distress,9 but different states have outlawed different specific actions.10 Many of the legal hurdles in criminalizing revenge porn are very similar to those criminalizing child pornography regarding

free speech. However, unlike child pornography, adult pornography is not categorically outlawed. Attempts to suppress revenge porn falls under the category of content discrimination, which has historically been treated with the least tolerance for government regulation.11 There are many reasons why revenge porn is so difficult to fully prohibit. The law does not always recognize that consent is context-specific. Just because a photo is consensually shared in an intimate setting does not mean that the photo sharer has consented to everyone seeing the photo. Revenge porn websites often rely on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which protects websites from being held responsible for the material that is posted by third parties.12 There have been some successful lawsuits of such websites that stripped their immunity, but not all websites have had challenges successfully brought against them. Victims of revenge porn can pursue litigation in several ways. 46 states and the District of Columbia have made explicit laws criminalizing revenge pornography and criminal statutes that vary depending on the state.13 The penalties range from probation to misdemeanor or felony with ranging jail time and fines.14 Victims may also file a civil suit, which allows them to receive monetary damages and ask the court to order injunctive relief, demanding that the image be taken down from the website and destroyed.15 Civil suits, however, have practical barriers, as not all victims can afford the attorney fees to bring forward a lawsuit. It is also not guaranteed that the images will be removed, and victims may not want the increased publicity that litigation would bring. Historically, obtaining proof that revenge porn was posted with malicious intent has been difficult. Defendants have been able to claim that they were hacked and therefore get away with their actions, as authorities were not able to prove otherwise or were not willing to investigate thereafter.16 One may expect that the ‘right to privacy’ should be enough to protect revenge porn victims. Within the ‘right to privacy,’ there are four torts, or harm categories that litigation must fall under: false light, misappropriation, invasion of privacy, and public disclosure of private fact.17 False light goes for false publicized material that reflects false beliefs, characteristics, or conducts to the victim.18 Revenge porn may violate the right to privacy under false light in cases where images of the victim were digitally manipulated to show the victim posing or performing an action they never did, or if the material was obtained by hacking if the victim never shared those images with anyone else before. Victims whose footage have been posted on websites may be able to argue the porn websites portray them in a false light, but it is a difficult argument to make and may depend on state laws—therefore not adequately covering all cases.19 Misappropriation generally does not apply to revenge porn cases, as it refers to cases of a person's name or likeness by another is used for profit. In order to litigate on the grounds of invasion of privacy or public disclosure of private fact, one must prove there was a reasonable expectation for privacy. There have been no court cases to establish whether or not revenge porn victims have this reasonable expectation privacy,

and so this remains an area of uncertainty for those trying to litigate against their virtual assailant. The last area I will discuss is the protection of copyright law in the context of revenge pornography. Mitchell Brothers Film Group vs. Cinema Adult Theaterestablished that the author of sexually explicit work receives copyright protection over their self-produced material.20 Victims may receive monetary damages through this form of claim. However, copyright law is only limited to those who took the photos themselves and does not protect those who unknowingly had photos taken of them. By the nature of the internet, however, no matter what path of litigation a victim decides to pursue, it is unlikely that they will be able to erase all traces of their explicit content. The damage done to the name and reputation of victims is irreversible, and it is difficult to account for all of the damages and difficulties victims may experience with future background checks for employment or education.

Application of Deepfakes and Recommendations

`The existing confusion surrounding revenge pornography laws have been made increasingly convoluted with the developing technology of Deepfakes. Many have criticized the lack of current legislation protecting individuals from risks of sexual image abuse through software that can take a face and apply it to pornographic videos and images. As the court currently stands, one may need to find a witness who recognized the victim portrayed in the Deepfake pornographic video for there to be enough standing to prosecute. Without it, there would be no harm of the victim proven.21 However, by the time a victim is recognized and informed about a pornographic Deepfake that their image has been put in, it is too late. The damage has already been done and no matter what legal action the victim takes, the video will live permanently on the web and has likely been seen by countless others. Banning Deepfake pornography also faces the many challenges of overcoming free speech protections against content discrimination. The precedent set by litigated child pornography and revenge porn cases will likely be very relevant as Deepfake pornography becomes more widespread and more cases begin to come forward. As of now while the technology is still developing, the possible legal pathways can only be speculated upon. With the 2003 PROTECT Act outlawing any “visual depiction that is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image of, or that is indistinguishable from an image of, a minor engaging in specified sexually explicit conduct,” child Deepfake pornography itself thankfully is not an area of concern. There needs to be stronger federal protective legislation against nonconsensual pornography, both real and computer-generated. New York vs. Sullivan will protect Deepfakes victims if they can prove that the content was created with malice with a burden of proof that is of negligence or higher.22 It has yet to be tested how the courts may respond to such a testimony. The obscenity clause of the Miller vs. Californiacase that also protected

child pornography against free speech claims should also be enough to back federal legislation and protect it from being struck down as unconstitutional. The standard for the Miller test is: (a) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.23 One may argue that this should be enough to protect potential victims without needing federal legislation; however, this precedent is by no means a solve-all for Deepfake or revenge pornography. In “Deepfakes: False Pornography is Here and the Law Cannot Protect You,” Douglas Harris writes about his concerns with Deepfake pornography not fitting the obscenity standard, using the hypothetical example of a Deepfake user applying an interesting color scheme into an adapted pornographic image or video to call it an “artistic” venture. This demonstrates how easy it would be for an individual to bypass the Miller test.24 Harris also adds that any victim trying to make a copyright claim will most likely not succeed because unlike revenge porn, Deepfake porn is likely to be seen as a parody which is protected by the fair use doctrine.25 Additionally, if anyone were to receive damages from a copyright claim, it is likely to be the copyright holder of the original pornographic content, not the Deepfake victim. One may also point to the ‘false light’ category of the right to privacy as sufficient protection; however, if the Deepfake producer puts a disclaimer depicting the video as false, or if the video is low-quality enough that the average person could discern is as fake, victims are essentially powerless. Harris believes that the recently implemented revenge porn laws of different states will be the most powerful weapon Deepfake porn users will have in defending themselves. He adds that statutes punishing revenge porn should add the word “depiction” into the definition of sexually explicit images in order to cover artificially produced images as well.26 This is a good start, but since not all states have revenge porn laws, it would be easy for perpetrators to flee to states where revenge porn is not regulated. As technology continues to develop past what was imaginable decades ago, I agree with Harris’s recommendations as previous laws were not made to fit technology that did not exist yet. However, particularly in cases where Deepfake pornography or revenge pornography is produced to intimidate or coerce individuals, there needs to be a consensus that would categorically criminalize distribution rather than leaving it open to so many loopholes. Harris’s analysis of the lack of protection against Deepfake pornography brings about the question of whether the harm done by Deepfake pornography is lesser than that of revenge porn, since that appears to be how the law treats it. Anne Gieseke argues that Deepfake pornography has the power to destroy its victims’ lives, as it can greatly hinder their ability to find jobs and force victims into dealing with sexual harassment. Gieseke also brings

up the point that Deepfake pornography almost exclusively targets women, citing a specific software application that only generates female genitalia called DeepNude as an example, and a study that showed 100% of all pornographic Deepfakes on websites depict women.27 The gendered nature of Deepfake pornography victimization has not been discussed by the court and may be an issue that comes up in further litigation. Although revenge porn is mostly known for its victimization of women, a study done by the University of Exeter in conjunction with the Revenge Porn Hotline in the UK reported found that around out of the callers to the hotline, 73% were women and 27% were men.28 These statistics demonstrate there is a must larger split in the demographics of revenge porn than there is so far with Deepfake pornography. Although I believe it is unlikely the court will strike down Deepfake pornography on the grounds of gender discrimination, it undeniably demonstrates the sexism that is built into the nature of the law and heightens the calls for stronger protections against it.

Currently, Virginia is the only state where nonconsensual pornographic Deepfakes are criminalized, and California allows for victims of pornographic Deepfakes to sue for damages.29 Karolina Mania makes a case favoring the criminalization of revenge porn and nonconsensual Deepfake pornography, as Virginia has done, over making it a civil matter, as California has. She cites the barriers of access civil suits bring to low income citizens as well as the greater effect criminalization has on deterrence.30 She also criticizes America for allowing states to determine their own legislation, as it creates dissonance in definitions and what is permitted. Although I agree with Mania’s preference to criminalization rather than leaving it as a civil matter, if the federal government will not move to create protective legislation, it needs to be up to the states to establish their own laws in order to encourage the rest of the country to as well. If the states can prove how valuable such legislation is in protecting the people, hopefully, the federal government will be moved towards legislation sooner rather than later. One of the biggest downfalls of the court is the lag that is often experienced due to precedent needing to be set before cases are ruled on. This is primarily evident from the long period from which the concept of child pornography began to the time it was barred. With this understanding, Eric Gerstner recommends that Congress and the states proactively set laws to deter abuses of technologies, including Deepfakes. He advocates for sweeping liability standards that would criminalize depicting any individual without their consent.31 As one scrolls the internet, it is easy to see how this is an unrealistic standard, since celebrities are often depicted by the public in memes or other media without explicitly consenting to the material. There must be a middle ground that can be struck, where images can be used in good faith, but will not ruin the lives of others. Not everything needs to be criminalized, but nonconsensual pornographic content should be. Nonconsensual Pornography as Domestic Abuse Different groups have raised the idea of lumping revenge porn under domestic violence, but most prominently have been the voices of Danielle Citron and Mary Anne Franks. They make

the argument that revenge porn can be a form of domestic violence as abusers often use intimate material to control their partners into doing their will.32 Others have taken the hard stance that it should be litigated as domestic violence as well.33 There are pros and cons to lumping nonconsensual porn into the category of domestic abuse, and though I believe in some cases it should be an option, domestic abuse does not always apply. Citron and Frank’s view of revenge porn is supported by the emerging domestic abuse framework by Evan Stark called “coercive control,” which defines domestic abuse beyond physical battering instances and includes loss of freedom through threats.34 As Deepfake pornographic software becomes more widely available, it is easy to see how it could be used as a means to threaten individuals. The threats could come from anyone as well—not just expartners, but also strangers on the internet who have access to enough photos of the victims to create a realistic Deepfake. Litigation and protection guidelines of domestic abuse should give insight to the amount of protection Deepfake victims should be given. Just because the images are not real, if they are indistinguishable from reality, the consequences the victims face from public defamation and destroyed employment opportunities cannot be ignored. Oftentimes, once compromising material is posted, the victims face a plethora of messages from strangers threatening to rape or kill them.35 Although the distributor of the material cannot be directly held accountable for those messages, the psychological damage the victim may endure needs to be taken into consideration as a reason to criminalize nonconsensual porn distribution. My main apprehensions of categorizing Deepfake pornography and revenge pornography as domestic violence is it may limit the scope of cases that are covered. Revenge pornography is not always done for the purposes of coercion or threats. Oftentimes it is done simply out of spite to make a person’s ex miserable. Labeling all nonconsensual porn as a matter of Domestic Abuse could potentially leave many victims defenseless, particularly those who cannot prove malicious intent or those who have never met the distributor of their image.

Conclusion

No matter what strategy is used when litigating against nonconsensual pornography, both fictional and real, it seems that there are many loopholes that could prevent accountability. Current protections, both through the court precedent set by child pornography cases and through constitutional rights, are not enough to stand against the incoming wave of new technology—technology that was never fathomable when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Ideally, criminalization would be accomplished on a federal level, but as things stand right now, individual state legislation seems to be the most likely way forward. I have examined the most probable means of protection for nonconsensual Deepfake and revenge pornography. I did so through the examination of court doctrine leading up to the PROTECT Act against child pornography and the right of free speech versus the right of

privacy. Through this analysis, I cannot help but think of the cliched phrase “with great power comes great responsibility.”36 As we watch the world evolve by cutting edge technology, we must not wait until danger reveals itself before protecting ourselves against it. One could compare releasing new technology into society with no boundaries with releasing a hungry lion into a city with no restraints. Prevention is key. There is still time to establish guidelines before new technologies get released into the world. As a country, we must seize this opportunity of time as a luxury; we may not have it for very long.

Eryn Yuen is a senior at University of California, Berkeley double majoring in legal studies and social welfare with a minor in English.

Notes

1 Anne Pechenik Gieseke, “‘The New Weapon of Choice’: Law’s Current Inability to Properly Address Deepfake Pornography.” Vanderbilt law Review Vol. 73, No. 5 (2020): 1479-1515, https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wp0/wpcontent/uploads/sites/278/2020/10/19130851/The-New-Weapon-of-Choice-Laws-Current-Inability-toProperly-Address-Deepfake-Pornography.pdf. 2 Yanet Ruvalcaba and Asia Eaton, “Nonconsensual Pornography Among U.S. Adults: A Sexual Scripts Framework on Victimization, Perpetration, and Health Correlates for Women and Men.” Psychology of Violence Vol. 10, No. 1 (2019): 1-8, DOI: 10.1037/vio0000233. 3 The PROTECT Act stands for “Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today”. Title V. Section 502 describes the standard of child pornography that is prohibited. Additional information can be found through the government website at https://www.congress.gov/bill/108thcongress/senate-bill/151 4 “Strict scrutiny.” Legal Information Institute,https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny. 5 “Schenck v. United States.” Encyclopedia Britannica. (2020), https://www.britannica.com/event/Schenck-vUnited-States 6 James Weinstein. “The Context and Content of New York vs. Ferber.” University of Michigan Press,(2016): 20-21, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gk08jr.5. 7 James Weinstein, “The Context and Content of New York vs. Ferber.”, 23. 8 Weinstein, 24. 9 Kurt Smith, “What is Revenge Porn?” Psych Central. (2018), https://psychcentral.com/blog/what-is-revengeporn/. 10 “State Revenge Porn Law,” FindLaw. (2020), https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/revenge-pornlaws-by-state.html. 11 John A. Humbach, “The Constitution and Revenge Porn,” Pace Law Review 35, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 221 12 Janet Portman, “Revenge Porn: Laws & Penalties,” Criminal Defense Lawyer. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-laws-penalties.htm. 13 “Revenge Porn Laws,” Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. https://www.cybercivilrights.org/revenge-porn-laws/ 14 “State Revenge Porn Law,” FindLaw. (2020) 15 Janet Portman, “Revenge Porn: Laws & Penalties,” Criminal Defense Lawyer.

16 Daniel Keats Citron; Mary Anne Franks, “Criminalizing Revenge Porn,” Wake Forest Law Review 49, no. 2 (2014): 367 17 William L. Prosser, Privacy,48 CALIF. L. REV. 383 (1960) 18 Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E cmt. a (1977). 19 Amanda Levendowski, “Using Copyright to Combat Revenge Porn.” New York University Journal of Intellectual, Property, and Entertainment Law, Vol. 3 No. 422, (2011): 434-435, https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-3-No-2_6_Levendowski_RevengePorn.pdf. 20 Mitchell Bros. Film Grp. v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 860 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 917 (1980). 21 Janet Portman, “Revenge Porn: Laws & Penalties,” Criminal Defense Lawyer. 22 Douglas Harris, “Deepfakes: False Pornography is Here and the Law Cannot Protect You”. Duke Law and Technology Review, Vol. 17 No. 1 (2019): 104. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1333&context=dltr. 23 1 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 (1973). 24 Harris, 105. 25 Harris, 107. 26 Harris, 124. 27 Anne Pechenik Gieseke, “‘The New Weapon of Choice’: Law’s Current Inability to Properly Address Deepfake Pornography.” Vanderbilt law Review Vol. 73, No. 5 (2020): 1482. 28 Joe Clarke, “Research reveals gendered trends in revenge porn crimes.” SWFfl. https://swgfl.org.uk/magazine/revenge-porn-research-2019/. 29 Matthew Ferraro, “Deepfake Legislation: A Nationwide Survey - State and Federal Lawmakers Consider Legislation to Regulate Manipulated Media,” WilmerHale. (2019) https://www.wilmerhale.com//media/files/shared_content/editorial/publications/wh_publications/client_alert_pdfs/20190925-deepfakelegislation-a-nationwide-survey.pdf. 30Karolina Mania, “The Legal Implications and Remedies Concerning Revenge Porn and Fake Porn: A Common Law Perspective,” Sexuality & Culture, Vol 24. (2020): 2090. https://doiorg.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.1007/s12119-020-09738-0. 31Erik Gerstner, "Face/off: "DeepFake" Face Swaps and Privacy Laws," Defense Counsel Journal 87, no. 1 (January 2020):12. 32 Daniel Keats Citron; Mary Anne Franks, “Criminalizing Revenge Porn,” Wake Forest Law Review 49, no. 2 (2014): 351. 33 In 2019, Sophie Gallangher wrote a piece in Huffpost called “Why Revenge Porn Needs to be in the Domestic Abuse Bill: ‘The Images Were Used to Destroy My Life’”. 34 Evan Stark, “Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life”. Oxford University Press, (2007): 13. 35 Frank and Citron, 353. 36 Stan Lee, 1793.

Bibliography

Citron, Daniel Keats; Franks, Mary Anne, “Criminalizing Revenge Porn,” Wake Forest Law Review 49, no. 2 (2014).

Clarke, Joe, “Research reveals gendered trends in revenge porn crimes.” SWGFL. https://swgfl.org.uk/magazine/revenge-porn-research-2019/.

Ferraro, Matthew, “Deepfake Legislation: A Nationwide Survey - State and Federal Lawmakers Consider Legislation to Regulate Manipulated Media,” Wilmer Hale. (2019), https://www.wilmerhale.com//media/files/shared_content/editorial/publications/wh_publications/client_alert_pdfs/20190925deepfake-legislation-a-nationwide-survey.pdf.

Gerstner, Erik, "Face/off: "Deepfake" Face Swaps and Privacy Laws," Defense Counsel Journal 87, no. 1 (January 2020): 12.

Gieseke, Anne Pechenik, “‘The New Weapon of Choice’: Law’s Current Inability to Properly Address Deepfake Pornography.” Vanderbilt law Review Vol. 73, No. 5 (2020): 1479-1515, https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vuwp0/wp-content/uploads/sites/278/2020/10/19130851/The-New-Weapon-of-Choice-Laws-CurrentInability-to-Properly-Address-Deepfake-Pornography.pdf.

Harris, Douglas, “Deepfakes: False Pornography is Here and the Law Cannot Protect You”. Duke Law and Technology Review, Vol. 17 No. 1 (2019): 104. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1333&context=dlt

r.

Humbach, John A., “The Constitution and Revenge Porn,” Pace Law Review 35, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 221

Levendowski, Amanda, “Using Copyright to Combat Revenge Porn.” New York University Journal of Intellectual, Property, and Entertainment Law, Vol. 3 No. 422, (2011): 434-435, https://jipel.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/NYU_JIPEL_Vol-3-No2_6_Levendowski_RevengePorn.pdf.

Mania, Karolina, “The Legal Implications and Remedies Concerning Revenge Porn and Fake Porn: A Common Law Perspective,” Sexuality & Culture, Vol 24. (2020): 2090. https://doiorg.libproxy.berkeley.edu/10.1007/s12119-020-09738-0.

Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 (1973).

Mitchell Bros. Film Grp. v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 860 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 917 (1980).

Portman, Janet, “Revenge Porn: Laws & Penalties,” Criminal Defense Lawyer. https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/revenge-porn-laws-penalties.htm.

Prosser, William L., Privacy,48 CALIF. L. REV. 383 (1960)

PROTECT Act “Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today”. Title V. Section 502 https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/151.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E cmt. a (1977).

“Revenge Porn Laws,” Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. https://www.cybercivilrights.org/revenge-porn-laws/

Ruvalcaba, Yanet and Eaton, Asia, “Nonconsensual Pornography Among U.S. Adults: A Sexual Scripts Framework on Victimization, Perpetration, and Health Correlates for Women and Men.” Psychology of ViolenceVol. 10, No. 1 (2019): 1-8, DOI: 10.1037/vio0000233.

“Schenck v. United States.” Encyclopedia Britannica. (2020), https://www.britannica.com/event/Schenck-vUnited-States

Smith, Kurt, “What is Revenge Porn?” Psych Central. (2018), https://psychcentral.com/blog/what-is-revengeporn/.

“Strict scrutiny.” Legal Information Institute,https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny.

Stark, Evan, “Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life”. Oxford University Press, (2007): 13.

“State Revenge Porn Law,” FindLaw. (2020), https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/revenge-porn-lawsby-state.html.

Weinstein, James. “The Context and Content of New York vs. Ferber.” University of Michigan Press,(2016): 2021, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gk08jr.5.