Rhode Island governor Gina Raimondo, a Democrat, earlier this week vetoed a bill intended to criminalize “revenge porn.” Revenge porn refers to the act of posting sexy pictures or videos of someone (typically an ex) online without their consent, with the intent of humiliating them or ruining their reputation.
The bill in question would see the posters of such material — those guilty of storing and uploading non-consensual porn — incur large fines and even prison sentences. The legislation also creates criminal penalties for those who engage in “sextortion” — threatening to release explicit pictures in exchange for money or making victims pay to have compromising images to removed from the web. The potential penalty? Up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
Yet Raimondo, exercising her veto powers for the first time, stepped in to nix the bill, whose broad wording she says could put a dangerous chill on free speech.
Under the bill, which targets “unauthorized dissemination of indecent material,” even photojournalists covering human rights abuses could be seen as criminals if they failed to prove that their images are published in the public interest, as the National Coalition Against Censorship noted.
This could cover the use of images of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, for instance — or, to take a more recent example, the famous Anthony Weiner nude photos.
“The breadth and lack of clarity may have a chilling effect on free speech,” she wrote in a letter to lawmakers. “We do not have to choose between protecting privacy rights and respecting the principles of free speech. The right course of action is to follow the example of other states, and craft a more carefully worded law that specifically addresses the problem of revenge porn, without implicating other types of constitutionally protected speech.”
Thirty-four states currently have laws on revenge porn.