Back to Top

The ACLU is arguing for a specific fix to this bill — which they successfully added to a similar law in Arizona this year. Macleod-Ball says that requiring prosecutors to prove “malicious intent” of the defendant in revenge porn cases would scale back the overly-broad bill. He believes this would protect people who don’t intend any harm — who maybe "made a mistake," or were "trying to make a joke and misinterpreted it — from overzealous prosecution."

A spokesman for Speier told Revelist they reject this change, as it would leave out cases where revenge was not the primary motive, but harm was still caused.

"Nonconsensual pornography is not always about revenge (which is why we say the revenge porn label is inaccurate)," her office said, "but it always about privacy."

Macleod-Ball said the ACLU is not considering action against the bill at this time, leaving Speier's bill to make it past an even more formidable opponent: a grid-locked Congress.