Rhode Island Governor Vetoes “Revenge Porn” Bill as Threat to Free Speech

Citing concerns about free speech, Rhode Island Gov. Gina M. Raimondo has vetoed a bill that would have made booksellers, newspapers, and other media criminally liable for the distribution of nude images without the affirmative consent of the people pictured. The bill was an attempt to address the problem of “revenge porn,” the posting of nude pictures of people by former lovers and others.

“We do not have to choose between protecting privacy rights and respecting the principles of free speech,” Raimondo wrote in her June 20 veto message. Raimondo said that she would support “a more carefully worded law that specifically addresses the problem of revenge porn, without implicating other types of constitutionally protected speech.”

Legislative leaders have not indicated whether they will attempt to override her veto of the bill, which was passed by large majorities in both houses of the legislature.

American Booksellers for Free Expression (ABFE) and Media Coalition joined ACLU, the Rhode Island Press Association, and the New England First Amendment Coalition in urging Raimondo to veto the bill. They argued that the legislation went far beyond images used to harass or torment those pictured by criminalizing photos that are newsworthy, artistic, educational, or historic in nature. There was no requirement in the bill that the distribution be done with a malicious intent.

In a letter to Raimondo, ABFE said that the legislation would have a chilling effect on booksellers, leaving them uncertain of the legality of books on their shelves. The bill did include an exemption for material that “serves a lawful purpose” or “constitutes a matter of public concern.” However, these terms were not defined.

In 2014, ABFE joined five bookstores in filing a legal challenge to an Arizona “revenge porn” law because it lacked adequate protections for booksellers, including a requirement that the person charged intended to harass the person in the photo. A federal judge declared the law unconstitutional. The state did not appeal the decision.