The General Assembly has amended G.S. 14-190.5A, the “revenge porn” statute. The statute now (1) applies to live streams as well as recordings, and (2) is not limited to images captured in the course of a “personal relationship.” However, it still leaves open questions about various types of digitally-generated images. The original statute. The revenge porn statute was enacted in 2015. Jessie Smith wrote about it here. In general terms, the statute makes it a crime to disclose private, sexually explicit images of another without the other’s consent. The amendment. S.L. 2017-93 amends the statute in two important ways. New definition of “image” includes “live transmission[s].” The statute applies to the disclosure of “images.” The original statute defined an “image” as “[a] photograph, film, videotape, recording, digital, or other reproduction.” That has been amended to “[a] photograph, film, videotape, recording, live transmission, digital or computer-generated visual depiction, or any other reproduction that is made by electronic, mechanical, or other means.” The inclusion of “live transmission” is particularly significant. It appears to be a response to the phenomenon of people live-streaming sexual, and even criminal, activity. This recent Newsweek article notes that “at least 45 instances of violence were enacted on Facebook Live, including murders, rapes, shooting, child abuse, torture, suicides and attempted suicides.” Statute now applies outside the context of a “personal relationship.” The original statute included the requirement that the person depicted had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the images, which in turn required that the images were initially [...]
Faculty Coordinators
