In modern society, there are so many nuances to dating and sex. How soon do you text the other person? How do you find love (or at least a good time) on Tinder? What sort of sexting is appropriate?
But here’s the thing, no matter what the exchange, it should ALWAYS be consensual between the two parties. Especially when posting an intimate image or video on the internet. Unfortunately, that’s not always true.
In fact, it is way too common an occurrence that an exchange via the Internet or texting is put in the hands of another, nonconsensually and, often, without the victim’s knowledge. That’s what happened on Monday, when a California man was arrested for allegedly creating and distributing revenge porn of a former partner.
Sergio Ortiz, 32, was charged with “distributing private images of intimate body parts of another,” a crime under the 2013 California “Revenge Porn” law. Ortiz, who had met the victim online, created the video with the knowledge and consent of the victim (although the victim says it was done reluctantly on her part). He had agreed to delete it afterwards. But after the couple broke up, and the victim no longer wanted to see Ortiz, the police believe Ortiz uploaded the video to a website. The video was found by a coworker of the victim and thus has caused her emotional distress among family, friends and coworkers.
California law stipulates that one party cannot distribute intimate images without the consent of the other party involved, especially if the intent was to hurt or publicly shame. According to ABC News, there were other women displayed in Ortiz’s account, but they have not been identified and have not come forward to say if the display was consensual or nonconsensual.
This is not the first time revenge porn has made the news. In 2015, “Revenge Porn King” Kevin Christopher Bollaert was sentenced to 18 years in prison for creating and facilitating a website all about revenge porn, in which users were able to submit former lovers to be put on the site with their Facebook page and legal name attached. If victims wanted to get their photos or videos taken down, they had to pay Bollaert payments, some as much as $250. The website then was taken down.
Despite most agreeing that “revenge porn” is malicious, many split on the decision of whether or not to criminalize it in law, arguing it could end up limiting constitutional rights. Over 30 states have a law against revenge porn, but there is yet to be a federal law regarding the matter.