Committee approves bill to curb texting of intimate photos in CT
People at least 18 years old who transmit pictures of genitalia despite objections from recipients could be subject to courtordered civil fines up to $10,000, under legislation approved by the General Assembly’s Judiciary Committee on Thursday, that next heads to the Senate floor.
Another part of the bill, aimed at lessening the effect of so-called toxic workplaces, would restrict the limits of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), allowing whistle blowers and victims of office harassment to seek remedies. It would ban socalled gag orders accompanying harassment settlements.
Republican leaders of the committee voted against the bill, but they left open possible future support if the legislation gets redrafted. Its stated aim is to protect domestic violence victims; stop the “unsolicited” transmission of intimate images by electronic communication devices, and prohibit some kinds of nondisclosure agreements.
“I think it’s got very laudable goals,” said Sen. John Kissel of Enfield, a ranking Republican on the panel. “I do believe that Connecticut, if not the leading states in the nation when it comes to address these issues, it’s one of the leading states.”
“Kids make a lot of mistakes, right?” said Rep. Craig Fishbein of Wallingford, the other ranking Republican on the committee. “Eighteen-yearolds do a lot of bad stuff, right? It becomes very problematic for a lot of these kids.” He warned that the bill might not be written clearly enough and the penalties potentially excessive.
State Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Killingly, a proponent of the legislation, which with designation of Senate Bill 4 and is one of the top priorities for majority Democrats in the Senate, said targets of the undesired photos of genitalia would have to forbid the receipt of such materials in writing or other ways, including text messages, emails, phone calls, face-to-face with witnesses and other communications. “There could be a variety of ways to demonstrate the actual damages that the receipt of that image caused,” she said.
State Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, asked why photos of breasts were not included as part of the bill, which focuses only on genitals.
“That is the concern that many people have had and other states have enacted similar public policy to prevent the unsolicited and frankly what has become for many people young people in particular, the regular exposure to these kinds of images,” Flexer said. “There is a constant delivery of these kinds of images that are unsolicited and offensive. So the goal here is to prevent that kind of exposure. Advocates for this proposal are concerned about the explicit images of an individual’s genitals and not other parts of the body.”
Fishbein dissected the entire multi-part legislation and warned that it leaves much open to interpretation. “I think that S.B. 4 needs an awful amount of work,” he said, focusing next on the nondisclosure agreement section. “A lot of this is antibusiness owner. The entrepreneurs and risk-takers who actually open businesses in this state should be able to do so.”
Flexer said that during a recent public hearing, many people testified that they were subject to nondisclosure agreements that they were never told about when they started their jobs. Others have socalled non-disparagement clauses in their work rules. “One third of American workers sign those agreements the day they start employment,” she said, adding that the measure is aimed at giving them some kind of freedom to talk about issues including discrimination by their employers.
State Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, a cochairman of the committee, said he would support the bill, but he also had some issues with the current draft. “I also think that it’s past time that this legislature ban so-called gag orders in sexual harassment claims,” he said, warning that retroactive aspects of the legislation could be conceived as trying to overrule currently active employment contracts.
“I would hate for us to pass a very well-intentioned law that has the unintended consequence of affecting the ability of folks to negotiate severance packages,” Stafstrom said. “I also think there are times when lawsuits are settled, that one or both parties want and negotiate for confidentiality in a settlement agreement.” After the bill was approved, State Rep. Matt Blumenthal, D-Stamford, said the revisions on nondisclosure agreements are aimed at empowering workers.
“They often sign them without any understanding of their impact, or in the face of vast power imbalances,” he said. “Overbroad NDAs silence survivors, allow toxic workplaces to persist, and allow predators to avoid accountability. In prohibiting them for illegal workplace harassment and discrimination, this bill will help ensure victims can tell their stories and prevent future misconduct.”
State Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven, cochairman of the committee, said that in the crunch of moving bills forward, so are not fully formed. “I think it is noted, the concerns here, and those concerns will be taken into account and the product that we have at the end will be better than what is before us,” he said. The committee’s deadline is 5 p.m. on Monday, April 1.