Revenge porn
Revenge porn, also termed nonconsensual pornography, constitutes the deliberate dissemination of private sexually graphic images or videos of an individual without their consent, frequently perpetrated by ex-partners motivated by retribution or malice.[1][2] This form of image-based sexual abuse exploits digital platforms to inflict humiliation, with empirical studies revealing its classification as a distinct cyber-enabled harm distinct from general sexting due to the absence of victim agreement on sharing.[3] Prevalence data from victim surveys indicate that nonconsensual distribution of intimate images affects a nontrivial segment of the population, particularly young adults, with one study reporting lifetime exposure rates up to 10% among women in certain demographics, often linked to prior consensual sharing within relationships that turns coercive post-breakup.[4][5] Victims endure profound psychological sequelae, including elevated risks of depression, anxiety, and diminished self-esteem, compounded by social stigma and victim-blaming attitudes that exacerbate isolation.[5][6] Research underscores causal pathways from exposure to these materials to long-term mental health impairments, akin to those observed in other privacy violations but intensified by the permanence and virality of online content.[7] Legally, responses have evolved with nearly all U.S. states enacting specific prohibitions against such distribution by the early 2020s, framing it as a privacy tort or criminal offense rather than protected speech, though First Amendment challenges persist in equating it to defamation or harassment precedents.[2][8] Federal measures, including the 2024 TAKE IT DOWN Act, extend protections to deepfake variants, mandating platform removal of nonconsensual content while imposing civil liabilities, reflecting empirical recognition of its role in broader patterns of intimate partner abuse.[9] Controversies center on enforcement gaps, where perpetrator anonymity and jurisdictional hurdles limit prosecutions, alongside debates over whether criminalization sufficiently deters without infringing expressive freedoms, with evidence suggesting underreporting due to shame and inefficacy of existing remedies.[10][11]