Distribution Intimate Image

[Jotrone]

Jurisdiction

Utah

If a person sends intimate images to one person (or a few people) and the recipient posts those images on the web, can the recipient be charged with distribution of an intimate image or is this new law intended for a person that captures the intimate image themselves and then shares it? Do the details not matter because the law is worded "with intent to cause harm" and no judge will side with anyone involved in a case like this for the sake of moral ethics?

 

[army judge]

Pshaw, porn, no one cares.

Just don't traffic in porn.

I'd rather look at puppies, kittens, or apes.

 

[mightymoose]

If you haven't read it entirely, the text of the law is here: https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter5B/C76-5b-S203_2014040320140513.pdf

Simply putting the image out there for the world to see is not enough. The law requires that you must actually suffer some emotional distress or harm which could be difficult to prove.
The law also says it does not apply if the person in the image voluntarily allowed exposure. If you deliberately shared the image with multiple people there is an argument to be made that you were not concerned about privacy.

It seems this law is intended more to address the publishing of images obtained surreptitiously and done with some sort of blackmail or other vengeful intent.

However, if you happen to be under 18 then there could still be some issues. I just don't see this law applying to your situation as you've described it. You voluntarily released the image to multiple people and pretty much lost the expectation of privacy.

 

[adjusterjack]

If a person sends intimate images to one person (or a few people)

If that person was stupid enough to send the photos that person gets to live with the consequences of that stupidity.

 

[leslie82]

If a person sends intimate images to one person (or a few people) and the recipient posts those images on the web, can the recipient be charged with distribution of an intimate image or is this new law intended for a person that captures the intimate image themselves and then shares it? Do the details not matter because the law is worded "with intent to cause harm" and no judge will side with anyone involved in a case like this for the sake of moral ethics?

What is in the "intimate" images? Is it nudity? Is it sex? Is it someone in their lingerie or underwear? Is it someone fully clothed in seductive poses?

It's most likely the law is intended for "revenge porn." More states are making laws to address that issue.

 

[mightymoose]

The way the statute is written it is less about image content and more about intent of the actor and consent of the victim. This statute could cover a large variety of situations.
In this case had the image been shared with only one person I think the argument would be much stronger, but sharing with multiple people weakens the privacy element. Also, proving actual harm could be quite difficult.