Just in: Illinois Supreme Court upholds IL's "revenge porn" law against 1st Amendment challenge, adopting many arguments from @CCRInitiative's amicus brief: courts.illinois.gov/Opinions/Supre… @MiamiLawSchool
@CCRInitiative @MiamiLawSchool The law is the strongest nonconsensual pornography law in the country and serves as the template for the federal #SHIELD Act.
Court finds the statute to be a "content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction" that "regulates a purely private matter." I made the time, place, and manner argument in this 2017 @FloridaLawRev article floridalawreview.com/wp-content/upl… 
@FloridaLawRev Here are some notable passages from the decision. On the nature of privacy regulation: "The entire field of privacy law is based on the recognition that some types of information are more sensitive than others, the disclosure of which can and should be regulated....
... To invalidate [the law] would cast doubt on the constitutionality of these and other statutes that protect the privacy rights of Illinois."
"the public has no legitimate interest in the private sexual activities of the victim or in the embarrassing facts revealed about her life."
"we observe that the United States Supreme Court has never declared unconstitutional a restriction of speech on purely private matters that protected an individual who is not a public figure for an invasion of privacy"
"the motive underlying an intentional & unauthorized dissemination of a private sexual image has no bearing on the resulting harm suffered by the victim...
... A victim whose image has been disseminated without consent suffers the same privacy violation & negative consequences of exposure, regardless of the disseminator’s objective."
"the unauthorized dissemination of a private sexual image, which by definition must depict a person while nude, seminude, or engaged in sexually explicit activity, is presumptively harmful."
Response to contention that law “criminalizes an adult complainant’s own stupidity at the expense of the [f]irst [a]mendment": "this argument entirely disregards the victim’s 1st amendment right to engage in a personal & private communication that includes a private sexual image"
"Defendant’s crude attempt to “blame the victim” is not well received and reinforces the need for criminalization."
