One of the hardest jobs of America’s higher courts is the balancing of personal rights with the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The right to free speech, for example, is very important, but not unlimited. It’s up to the courts to decide which rights are the most important in cases where one right conflicts with another. In a recent case in Texas, the state appeals court ruled that the local revenge porn law violated constitutionally protected right to expression. Could California’s revenge porn law hold up if tried in the higher court? San Diego criminal attorney Peter M. Liss weighs in.
When it comes to the constitutionality of revenge porn laws, the courts must balance the victim’s right to privacy against the defender’s right to free speech. This isn’t always an easy task, especially because these are both such important liberties in America. In the past, the court has allowed for limits on the freedom of speech, but usually laws that put limits on free speech must limit it as little as possible and they have limited it when it comes to obscenity or defamation.
In terms of revenge porn, the Supreme Court has still not taken any cases on this specific issue, but New Jersey and Texas have both had laws struck down in higher courts because they were too vague. San Diego defense lawyers know that California’s revenge porn law is different because rather than just stating that it is illegal to upload a private picture of someone without their consent, the violator must also have added the image with the purpose of causing emotional distress to the victim and the victim must actually have suffered emotional harm as a result.
Because California’s law is more specific, it has so far held up to scrutiny while other state’s revenge porn laws have been struck down. Even so, until the Supreme Court makes a decision on the issue, other courts must base their own decisions on the specifics of the state laws in question and on past court rulings.
San Diego criminal defense attorneys agree that it doesn’t seem entirely unlikely that the Supreme Court would be willing to infringe on a person’s right to free speech if it meant protecting another person from having their nude photos uploaded without their consent -especially if the law had a clause requiring the uploader intended to cause emotional distress and the victim needed to suffer emotional distress. Of course, even if the Supreme Court ruled another state’s revenge porn law to be unconstitutional because it limited too much free speech, the ruling might not affect California’s more specific law.
Ultimately, California’s revenge porn law could be found to be unconstitutional, but it has a better chance of being upheld than revenge porn laws in other states. While you can always appeal a revenge porn conviction on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional, it’s better to avoid getting convicted in the first place. That’s why you should always fight these convictions with the help of a top San Diego criminal lawyer. You can schedule a free initial consultation to discuss your case with Peter M. Liss by calling (858) 486-3024 or (760) 643-4050.
Creative Commons Image by David
