The Legal Implications and Remedies Concerning Revenge Porn and Fake Porn: A Common Law Perspective
Tóm tắt
Based on US and British regulations in force, this article offers an overview of legislation of two Common Law countries in the area of modern forms of law infringements focusing on the notions of revenge porn and fake porn. The first part contains definitions and descriptions of the terms ‘revenge porn’ and ‘fake porn’, pointing out to the context of the relationship between the dynamic technological development and use of artificial intelligence on the one hand and the regulatory framework failing to meet the current needs on the other. Further, examination is conducted of US and British legislation in force divided into civil and criminal law, indicating legislative gaps as well as the inefficiency of the existing legal solutions and presenting a range of proposals of legislative changes. The considerations have been supplemented with the results of the author’s assessment of sociological and statistical research available in source literature carried thus far in the field in question. The following section is dedicated to a comparative assessment of American and British legal solutions based on selected, critical issues. The final parts of the article serve to postulate systemic changes in legislation and is a proposal to introduce out-of-court dispute settlement methods in legal disputes pertaining to the matters discussed herein, and to frame future research directions.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Attwood, F. (2005). What do people do with porn? Qualitative research into the consumption, use, and experience of pornography and other sexually explicit media. Sexuality and Culture, 9, 65–86.
Bates, S. (2016). Revenge porn and mental health: A qualitative analysis of the mental health effects of revenge porn on female survivors. Feminist Criminology, 12(1), 22–42.
Batza C., (2017). Trending now: The role of defamation law in remedying harm from social media Backlash, 44 Pepp. L. Rev. 429.
Beyens, J., & Lievens, E. (2016). A legal perspective on the non-consensual dissemination of sexual images: Identifying strengths and weaknesses of legislation in the US, UK and Belgium. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 47, 31–43.
Bhagwat A., (2017). When speech is not ‘speech’, 78 Ohio St. L.J. 839.
Branch, K., Hilinski-Rosick, C. M., Johnson, E., & Solano, G. (2017). Revenge porn victimization of college students in the United States: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 128–142.
Bustamante, D. (2016). Florida joins the fight against revenge porn: Analysis of Florida’s new anti-revenge porn law. FIU L. Rev., 12, 357.
Carter T. (2017). Erasing the news the media and lawyers wrestle with the question: Should some stories be forgotten? ABA J., 34.
Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest L. Rev., 49, 345.
Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2019). Evaluating New York’s ‘Revenge Porn’ Law: A missed opportunity to protect sexual privacy.
Cohen A. I. (2015) Nonconsensual pornography and the first amendment: A case for a new unprotected category of speech. 70 U. Miami L. Rev. 300.
Cohen J. E. (2017). Law for the Platform Economy. 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 133.
Cooke A. (2017). The right to post: How North Carolina's revenge porn statute can escape running afoul of the first amendment post-bishop. 15 First Amend. L. Rev. 472.
Delfino, R. (2019). Pornographic deepfakes—revenge porn’s next tragic act–the case for federal criminalization. Available at SSRN 3341593.
Dickson, A. (2016). Revenge porn: A victim focused response. UniSA Student Law Review, 2, 47–56.
Drinnon, C. (2017) When fame takes away the right to privacy in one's body: Revenge porn and tort remedies for public figures. 24 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L.
Flynn, A., Henry, N., Powell, A., Scott, A., McGlynn, C., Rackley, E., & Gavey, N. (2019). Shattering lives and myths: Report on image-based sexual abuse.
Franklin, Z. (2014) Justice for revenge porn victims: Legal theories to overcome claims of civil immunity by operators of revenge porn websites, 102 Cal. L. Rev. 1303.
Franks, M. A., & Waldman, A. E. (2018). Sex, lies, and videotape: Deep fakes and free speech delusions. Md. L. Rev., 78, 892.
Franks, M. A. (2015). Drafting an effective ‘revenge porn’ law: A guide for legislators. Available at SSRN 2468823.
Franks M. A. (2017) The desert of the unreal: inequality in virtual and augmented reality, 51 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 499.
Franks M. A. (2017) Democratic surveillance. 30 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 425.
Fung Chen Pen, A. (2015). Striking back: A practical solution to criminalizing revenge porn. 37 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 405.
Gabison, G. (2016). Policy considerations for the blockchain technology public and private applications. 19 SMU Sci. & Tech. L. Rev. 327.
Gerrie, W. (2017). Say what you want: How unfettered freedom of speech on the internet creates no recourse for those victimized. 26 Cath. U.J.L. & Tech. 4.
Griffith, V. N. (2016) Smartphones, nude snaps, and legal loopholes: Why pennsylvania needs to amend its revenge porn statute. 16 U. Pitt. J. Tech. L. Pol'y 135.
Hall, M., & Hearn, J. (2017). Revenge pornography: Gender, sexuality and motivations. London: Routledge.
Hall, M., & Hearn, J. (2019). Revenge pornography and manhood acts: a discourse analysis of perpetrators’ accounts. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(2), 158–170.
Hamilton L. K. (2017). Let me tell you who i am: Establishing a federal remedy for interference with online identity. 69 Fed. Comm. L.J. 173
Helmholz, R. H. (1990). Continental law and common law: Historical strangers or companions? Duke Law Journal, 1990(6), 1207–1228.
Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2015). Beyond the ‘sext’: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(1), 104–118.
Hickey, K. (2018). Using technology to impede privacy and consent: A survey of revenge porn laws. 55 Am. Crim. L. Rev. Online 19.
Huang, S. (2015). The South Korean fake banking app scam. Retrieved on 2 Feb 2015.
Jackson, K. (2017). I Spy: Addressing the privacy implications of live streaming technology and the current inadequacies of the law. 41 Colum. J.L. & Arts, 125.
Jennifer, A. (2017). Revenge porn and Section 33: the story so far. Entertainment Law Review, 28(2), 40–42.
Keats Citron D., Franks M. A. (2014). Criminalizing Revenge Porn, 49 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 345, 359–360, n.10.
Keats Citron, D., Wittes, B. (2017). The internet will not break: Denying bad Samaritans S 230 immunity. 86 Fordham L. Rev. 401.
Kitchen, A. N. (2015). The need to criminalize revenge porn: How a law protecting victims can avoid running afoul of the first amendment. Chi.-Kent L. Rev., 90, 247.
Lageson, S. E., McElrath, S., & Palmer, K. E. (2019). Gendered public support for criminalizing ‘Revenge Porn’. Feminist Criminology, 14(5), 560–583.
Lai, A. (2016). Revenge porn as sexual harassment: Legislation, advocacies, and implications. 19 J. Gender Race & Just. 251.
Levendowski, A. (2013). Using copyright to combat revenge porn. NYU J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L., 3, 422.
LiCalzi Ch. (2017) Computer crimes. 54 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1025.
Lillie, J. J. M. (2002). Sexuality and cyberporn: Towards a new agenda for research. Sexuality and Culture, 6, 25–48.
Marchant, G. E. (2017). Artificial intelligence and the future of legal practice. ABA SciTech Law. Vol 14 No. 1.
Marshak, E. (2017) Online Harassment: A Legislative Solution, 54 Harv. J. on Legis. 503.
Mason, G., Czapski, N. (2017). Regulating cyber-racism, 41 Melb. U. L. Rev. 284.
McGlynn, C., Rackley, E., & Houghton, R. (2017). Beyond ‘revenge porn’: The continuum of image-based sexual abuse. Feminist Legal Studies, 25(1), 25–46.
Moses, L. B. (2007). Why have a theory of law and technological change. Minn. JL Sci. & Tech., 8, 589.
Najdowski, C. J. (2017). Legal responses to nonconsensual pornography: Current policy in the United States and future directions for research. 23 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 154
Nolan-Haley, J. (2012) Is Europe headed down the primrose path with mandatory mediation? 37 N.C. J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 981.
Nolan-Haley, J. (2012). Mediation: The ‘New Arbitration’. 17 Harv. Negot. L. Rev. 61.
Nolan-Haley, J. (2015), Mediation: The best and worst of times, 16 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 731.
O'Connor, K., Drouin, M., Davis, J., & Thompson, H. (2018). Cyberbullying, revenge porn and the mid-sized university: Victim characteristics, prevalence and students' knowledge of university policy and reporting procedures. Higher Education Quarterly, 72(4), 344–359.
Pina, A., Holland, J., & James, M. (2017). The malevolent side of revenge porn proclivity: Dark personality traits and sexist ideology. International Journal of Technoethics (IJT), 8(1), 30–43.
Pollack, J. M. (2017). Getting Even: empowering victims of revenge porn with a civil cause of action, 80 Alb. L. Rev., 353, 353.
Poole E. (2015) Fighting Back Against Non-Consensual Pornography, 49 U.S.F. L. Rev. 181.
Potter, R. H., & Potter, L. A. (2001). The internet, cyberporn, and sexual exploitation of children: Media moral panics and urban myths for middle-class parents? Sexuality and Culture, 5, 31–48.
Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2017). Sexual violence in a digital age. Berlin: Springer.
Rabinovich-Einy, O. (2003). Balancing the scales: The ford-firestone case, the internet, and the future dispute resolution landscape. Yale JL & Tech., 6, 1.
Rabinovich-Einy, O., Katsh, E. (2017). The New Courts. 67 Am. U. L. Rev. 165.
Roffer, J. (2016). Nonconsensual pornography: An old crime updates its software. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ, 27, 935.
Roy, S. (2017). Gutterman, media law. 67 Syracuse L. Rev. 1127.
Salter, M., & Crofts, T. (2015). Responding to revenge porn: challenges to online legal impunity. In L. Cornella & L. Tarrant (Eds.), New views on pornography: sexuality, politics, and the law (pp. 233–256). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Sela, A. (2017) The effect of online technologies on dispute resolution system design: antecedents. Current trends, and future directions. 21 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 635.
Shinn, L. D. (2015), YouTube’s content id as a case study of private copyright enforcement systems. 43 AIPLA Q.J. 359.
Sorensen, J. M. (2017). Forgive and regret: Analysis and proposed changes to connecticut’s revenge porn statute, 35 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 559.
Stipanowich, T. J. (2017) Living the dream of adr: Reflections on four decades of the quiet revolution in dispute resolution. 18 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 513.
Stokes, J. K. (2014). The indecent internet: Resisting unwarranted Internet exceptionalism combating revenge porn. Berkeley Tech. LJ, 29, 929.
Stroud, S. R. (2014). The dark side of the online self: A pragmatist critique of the growing plague of revenge porn. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29(3), 168–183.
Suzor, N., Seignior, B., & Singleton, J. (2016). Non-consensual porn and the responsibilities of online intermediaries. Melb. UL Rev., 40, 1057.
Tariq, S., Lee, S., Kim, H., Shin, Y., & Woo, S. S. (2018). Detecting both machine and human created fake face images in the wild. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on multimedia privacy and security (pp. 81–87).
Theodore, Z., & Wyman, J. D. (2016). Litigation of liability for internet posting of ‘revenge porn’, 147 Am. Jur. Trials 319.
Vielmetter, G., Sell, Y. (2014) Leadership 2030: The six megatrends you need to understand to lead your company into the future. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Volokh, E. (2016) The freedom of speech and bad purposes. 63 UCLA L. Rev. 1366.
Vora, A. (2017). Into the shadows: Examining judicial language in revenge porn cases. 18 Geo. J. Gender & L. 229.
Walker G. (2017) Financial technology law-a new beginning and a new future. 50 Int’l Law. 137.
Wang, R., Ma, L., Juefei-Xu, F., Xie, X., Wang, J., & Liu, Y. (2019). Fakespotter: A simple baseline for spotting ai-synthesized fake faces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06122.
Weckstrom, K. (2012). Liability for trademark infringement for internet service providers. Marq. Intell. Prop. L. Rev., 16, 1.
Yanisky-Ravid S., Mittelman A. (2016), Gender biases in cyberspace: A two-stage model, the new arena of wikipedia and other websites. 26 Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J. 381