It is horrific enough that the person who murdered Lauren McCluskey first blackmailed her with nude photos. It is even more appalling that the police officer she went to for help used those photos for his own sexual entertainment. @CCRInitiative
I worked with Utah legislators on their nonconsensual pornography bill in 2014 & was sorry that the final version required an intent to cause emotional distress/harm to the victim. Cases like this, when the motive is voyeurism/bragging, show why such a requirement is misguided.
The law was thankfully revised in 2019 to replace the intent requirement with a requirement that the perp knew or should have known that disclosure would cause emotional distress/harm. Unfortunately, it also required that the victim actually experience emotional distress or harm.
As Lauren likely never learned that the officer had disclosed the photo before she died, it would be difficult to prove that she personally suffered such harm. Her case is a tragic demonstration of why the requirement of demonstrated harm is also misguided.
That a victim may never discover that her intimate images were disclosed without consent does not make the conduct less reprehensible. Many sites dedicated to "revenge porn" are administered in secret for purposes of voyeurism & misogynist male bonding (see, e.g. Marines United)
Anyone - and that includes the ACLU - who argues that nonconsensual pornography is free speech so long as there is no intent to cause harm or distress is arguing that what this police officer did is ok.
And anyone who ever dares to ask "why didn't she go to police" about any form of sexual abuse, exploitation, or harassment - this case is your answer, right here.
