Boston Sunday Globe

Revenge porn ought to be a crime — finally — in Massachuse­tts

-

The sharing of intimate photograph­s by consenting adults has by many accounts become commonplac­e. And it has come with a host of unfortunat­e consequenc­es — including the potential for betrayal of what was once a trusting relationsh­ip.

Revenge porn — the nonconsens­ual sharing or publishing of those intimate images — has swept up celebritie­s and the once-happy couple next door alike.

Look no further than the recently reported case of Aiden Kearney, the controvers­ial blogger known as Turtleboy, who now stands accused by a former girlfriend of threatenin­g to release nude photos of her after she broke up with him in December — and started talking to police about his other activities. Kearney had recently been charged with witness intimidati­on in connection with his interest in a Canton murder case. Now he faces charges of domestic assault and witness intimidati­on in the case involving his ex-girlfriend.

Police options were limited because Massachuse­tts remains one of two states in the nation where revenge porn is not specifical­ly criminaliz­ed in state law. That’s something the House moved this week to do something about, voting 151-0 to advance a bill to make revenge porn a crime.

“Imagine going to file charges related to this breach of trust and being told there is nothing or very little that can be done in the criminal justice system,” Judiciary Committee cochair Michael Day said during House debate Wednesday.

A 2016 study found that 1 in 25 Americans had become the victim of either revenge porn or threats of exposure. At the time only a handful of states criminaliz­ed the practice. But legislatur­es around the nation began to respond to what nearly all saw was a growing and pervasive problem. By 2020 the number had grown to 46 states plus the District of Columbia. Today only Massachuse­tts and South Carolina are outliers.

The bill, which has now moved on to the Senate for action, would make the distributi­on of “visual material” depicting another person who is either identified or identifiab­le “who is nude, partially nude or engaged in sexual conduct, when the distributi­on causes physical or economic injury or substantia­l emotion distress” punishable by up to 2 ½ years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. Subsequent conviction­s would bring longer prison terms and larger fines.

It also addresses the related problem of teen sexting by providing a possible off-ramp from the criminal justice system by way of an educationa­l diversion program to be created by the attorney general’s office. The materials from the program would also be made available to school districts as part of an effort to stop trouble before it starts.

As Representa­tive Jeff Roy of Franklin told his colleagues, “Law enforcemen­t officers are looking for a middle ground that will allow them to educate kids about the consequenc­es of their actions without ruining their lives.”

And unlike previous efforts, the new Housepasse­d bill includes a provision that would add “coercive control” to the list of abusive behaviors that would allow a judge to issue a domestic violence restrainin­g order.

“I’ve been in so many courtrooms … pleading with judges for restrainin­g orders” in cases that involved not necessaril­y physical abuse but the often more “insidious” forms of coercive control in domestic violence cases, Representa­tive Natalie Higgins of Leominster, who served as a rape crisis counselor for 10 years before being elected to the Legislatur­e, told the editorial board.

Carefully defined in the legislatio­n, coercive control would include isolating a member of a household from friends or relatives, controllin­g their access to services, depriving them of “basic needs,” or threatenin­g to publish personal informatio­n or sexually explicit images.

Higgins was the moving force behind a section of the bill that would extend the criminal statute of limitation­s for domestic violence (defined as assault and battery on a family or household member) from the current six years to 15 years — bringing it in line with the state’s existing statute of limitation­s on rape and crimes of sexual violence. According to Higgins, many survivors fear losing custody of children, causing delays that run afoul of the current statute of limitation­s.

During the last legislativ­e session, the House in May 2022 passed an earlier version of the bill but the Senate didn’t pass its own version until the final days of the session, leaving little time to reconcile the proposals. This year the House got an early start on its more wide-ranging bill, presumably to avoid the same problem.

“Alongside survivors and advocates across Massachuse­tts, we hope the state Senate will take up this essential, lifesaving legislatio­n without delay and bring us one step closer to achieving justice for survivors and preventing future violence,” Jane Doe Inc., a group focused on addressing domestic violence and sexual assault, said in a statement.

The state’s outlier status on punishing revenge porn ought to be a source of embarrassm­ent for Senate lawmakers. This one is too important to be held hostage to late-session legislativ­e gamesmansh­ip.

Massachuse­tts remains one of two states in the nation where revenge porn is not specifical­ly criminaliz­ed in state law. That’s something the House moved this week to do something about, voting 151-0 to advance a bill to make revenge porn a crime.

 ?? CHRIS RATCLIFFE/BLOOMBERG ?? Massachuse­tts and South Carolina are the only states where revenge porn is not criminaliz­ed.
CHRIS RATCLIFFE/BLOOMBERG Massachuse­tts and South Carolina are the only states where revenge porn is not criminaliz­ed.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States