Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Wednesday, March 27, 2024 | Back issues
Courthouse News Service Courthouse News Service

Indiana Supreme Court upholds revenge porn law

The law was passed in 2019 and made it a Class A misdemeanor to share an intimate image of someone without their consent.

INDIANAPOLIS (CN) — Indiana's revenge porn law does not infringe upon free speech rights, the state's Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday.

Finding the lower court had improperly struck down the state’s law, the Indiana Supreme Court issued a 37-page ruling on Tuesday that upholds the law and reinstates criminal charges against the defendant in the underlying case.

The law in question makes it a crime to distribute an “intimate image” without the person’s consent and defines such images as photographs, digital images or videos that depict sexual intercourse or conduct, or those that depict uncovered genitals, buttocks or a woman’s breast.

Charges were filed against Conner Katz under the law in 2020 for allegedly filming his then-girlfriend performing oral sex on him without her knowledge and then sharing that video.

According to court documents, Katz allegedly shared the video with his ex-girlfriend who then told the victim, who is identified as R.S., about the video’s existence. The victim then confronted Katz through text messages and later shared that information with the Angola Police Department.

Katz claimed that he was not properly charged because the video did not show the victim’s face or his penis. He also argued that the law itself is unconstitutional because it is not narrowly tailored enough to avoid violating free speech rights.

The trial court dismissed the case, agreeing with Katz’s argument that the law was overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. After that ruling, the state appealed the case directly to the Indiana Supreme Court.

“This statute is narrowly tailored to serve the State’s compelling interest in protecting citizens from the harms of nonconsensual pornography; the statute does not violate the First Amendment,” Indiana Supreme Court Justice Mark Massa wrote in Tuesday's ruling.

Massa explained that the compelling interest is clear, as the government is attempting to protect an individual’s privacy and the harms that could come from the unwanted distribution of such images.

The ruling notes that victims of leaked sexual images are often harassed, stalked, extorted, solicited for sex, and threatened with sexual violence. It also notes that victims can suffer psychological harm and that even those who survive without mental health issues may face a damaged public reputation.

“Under our rationality inquiry, we have no trouble concluding the impingement created by the statute is vastly outweighed by the public health, welfare, and safety served,” the ruling stated.

The ruling also referenced similar decisions in other states, including a decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court, which also upheld a law that criminalizes the dissemination of intimate or explicit images. That decision affirmed the conviction of Michael Casillas of St. Paul, who sent out a video and photo he had taken of his ex-girlfriend.

“We are indeed thrilled by the Indiana Supreme Court's recognition that laws criminalizing nonconsensual pornography regardless of motive are constitutionally sound and urgently needed to protect intimate privacy,” said Mary Anne Franks, president and legislative and tech policy director of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, who filed a court brief in support of the law. “Indiana is the fifth state supreme court to uphold the constitutionality of criminal prohibitions of image-based sexual abuse. It should now be completely clear that there is no First Amendment right to disclose private, sexually explicit images of another person without consent."

With the Indiana law upheld, the charges will now be reinstated against Katz. The decision of the state’s high court did not weigh in his on innocence or guilt. Massa wrote that it would be up to a jury to decide if the image in question “sufficiently depicted” an intimate image under the state’s law.

Categories / Appeals, Criminal, Government, Law

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Loading...