Arizona’s Naked Photo Law Makes Free Speech a Felony

Which of the following could land you a felony conviction in Arizona?

  1. Showing images of naked prisoners tortured at Abu Ghraib;
  2. Linking to the iconic Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph of “Napalm Girl,” showing an unclothed Vietnamese girl running from a napalm attack;
  3. Sharing a close-up photo of a woman’s breast with a breastfeeding support group;
  4. Waving a friend over to see a cute naked baby pic — like the one you see on this page.

Unfortunately, the answer is all of the above. That’s because Arizona recently passed a law that makes it a felony — and potentially a sex offense — to share any image of nudity or sexuality before you get consent from every person pictured.

Protecting personal privacy is, without doubt, a laudable goal. Indeed, the ACLU works tirelessly to protect your private data. But Arizona’s “nude photo law” is a seriously misguided attempt to achieve that goal. This new crime is broad and confusing. It applies to anyone who shares a nude image, not just to bad actors who intentionally invade another’s privacy. A prosecutor need not demonstrate that a person had an expectation of privacy in an image before charging you with a crime for sharing it. And the law applies equally to a private person’s hacked naked photo and a beautiful nude at a photography exhibit — because the law’s breadth encompasses truly newsworthy, artistic, and historical images.

As a result, the nude photo law creates bizarre and troubling burdens on speech fully protected by the First Amendment.

For proof that this law goes way too far and criminalizes innocent and valuable speech, you need look no further than the august group of bookstores, newspapers, photographers, publishers, and librarians that challenged the law together today (web page on case and complaint). Many of them belong to our stalwart First Amendment allies at the Media Coalition, whose members include the plaintiff associations of publishers, librarians and booksellers. Represented by the ACLU and Dentons US LLP, the plaintiffs just want to be able to offer books, art, news, and history without risking a criminal conviction in Arizona. That doesn’t seem too much to ask.

Proponents of the law indicated that it was intended to address the harms of “revenge porn” — a digital phenomenon typified by a scorned lover who maliciously posts private images of an ex online, often alongside her personal details. The harms of such conduct can be very real, and they predominately impact women. There are true horror stories about women who have suffered extreme humiliation and harassment, had intimate photos sent to relatives and coworkers, and lost job opportunities.

States can address these harms without treading on free speech, if and only if those laws are tailored to addressing malicious invasions of privacy. Arizona’s is not. And we’re not going to blindly trust that the government will apply this broad law responsibly, only against the “bad guys.” The photo above literally illustrates why.

One of the plaintiffs in our lawsuit, the Voice Media Group, publishes the newsweekly Phoenix New Times. The New Times published a series of images from a local art show by Arizona artist and Arizona State University Professor Betsy Schneider. One of the images from that art show is the great image above – documenting a month in Schneider’s infant son’s life.

Maricopa County publicly considered opening a police investigation into the New Times’ publications of these images, after police requested an investigation. A Phoenix city attorney told the press that if the photos were found to be illegal, “Everybody who picked up one those issues [of the New Times] could be prosecuted for possessing child pornography.” That’s what can happen when law enforcement officials wield problematic laws as broadly as they’re written.

The First Amendment just doesn’t permit that kind of carelessness. Laws meant to address real horrors need to do just that – without serving as Trojan Horses that erode our hallowed free speech rights.

View comments (12)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

Hopefully the ACLU will at some point address the sex offender laws, and how they should be ruled unconstitutional. Lifetime registration, limits on where you can live and where you can work, all AFTER a sentence has been served. The scarlet letter was supposed to have gone away in the 17th century.

M. Fettig

I'm sure the law was meant to curb the recent thefts of personal images stolen from celebrities, but, yes, it sounds pretty vague

Curtis J Neeley Jr

I conditionally agree. The solution is to customize this honest attempt to do right. Rebroadcasting to the public of any naked image should be the actionable crime and not just possession without intent to redistribute.
Neeley v 5 FCC Commissioners, et. al., (5:14-cv-5135)

Curtis J Neeley Jr

Headline #1:=Arizona’s Naked Photo Law Makes Free Speech a Felony should be retitled
Headline #2:=Arizona’s Naked Photo Law Makes Some Free Speech a Felony
The headline used attracts more readers but distorts the law.
The opinion of which of these is illegal multiple choice answer is unsolicited legal advice I believe to be further distortion of law.

jazzidiot

I can picture Scalia declaring "I'll Know it when I see it"

Anonymous

That's disgusting. Just because a person served "all their time" DOESN'T mean they aren't capable of doing the same damn thing again.
Just ask the guy who robbed my bank and shot me; he was already on parole when he DID it.
He also, incidentally, bought all 8 firearms WHILE on parole withOUT alerting police until AFTER he robbed the bank.

oncefallendotcom

When are people going to learn that every time the letters S, E, and X are found on a bill, brains automatically shut off and bills are passed by emotion rather than reason? It has happened with every s*x offender law over the years. The only thing that would have made the bill worse would have been naming it after some poor traumatized woman who was driven to suicide or something over the photos.

I'd like to see the ACLU step up more often, especially with s*x offender laws, which have all been passed in similar manners.

Anonymous

that so called reasonable intelligent adults would pass any law of this sort is truly sickening.....

Anonymous

The laws in AZ are a joke. Lifetime probation is a nightmare and money maker for the state. Many on the sex offender list are not dangerous and this law will help AZ add additional names. It will not keep families safe.

Anonymous

Laws are created, on the surface to address a specific issue but almost always have within them language that affects other areas and tramples our freedoms. It is an attempt by law makers and legislators to appeal to their supporters and their own personal agendas. If they were half as intelligent as we think they are then they could easily see the potential impact of there proposed laws. I also believe that it is a standard tactic to introduce loads of BS as a smokescreen so they can sneak in specific language to further them selves in ways that will not become obvious till viewed in hindsight. So many people in these positions are nothing more than self serving SOB's who care not at all for the freedoms and justice they claim to serve.

Pages

Stay Informed