Revenge porn has reached alarming proportions in recent years and appears to be growing steadily. News cases and studies that have analyzed the phenomenon highlight the risk of widespread exposure: no one is excluded, from adolescents to institutional representatives, through public figures and ordinary people. A global phenomenon that continues to demonstrate[1] how fragile identity can be in the digital ecosystem. Affected social users would be 1 in 8[2], with even higher rates in the case of minors. If we add to this the fact that 51 percent of victims contemplate the possibility of suicide, we realize the seriousness of the problem[3].
In Italy alone, there are estimated to be more than two million victims and 14 million Italian accounts have viewed online images that were uploaded or disseminated without consent[4].
On Telegram groups dedicated to the Italian public, moreover, Permesso Negato’s Permanent Observatory found the number of non-unique registered users to be 13,152,000 accounts[Ibid.] According to another study, 4 percent of Italians are reportedly victims of revenge porn and nearly 9 percent say they know at least one victim[5]. In addition, 1 in 6 Italians would produce intimate images or videos and half of these would share them with other people[6].
The shocking dimensions that have been achieved are also due to the remoting of interpersonal relationships that occurred as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic[7]. People have acquired new habits and communicative behaviors that are also reflected in the construction of intimate relationships; a change that is not fleeting and that, once the emergency is over, has been consolidated into new ways of expressing affectivity.
Revenge porn is part of a broader phenomenon, nonconsensual pornography (NCP), not necessarily related to “relationship revenge” and involving the digital sharing/broadcasting without the consent of the person portrayed of images of a sexual nature: images taken consensually or voluntarily in the course of sexual intercourse or a sexual act but intended to remain private or to be shared privately; images captured by hidden cameras; images taken from electronic devices; images taken in the course of sexual assault. To the “traditional” forms of a digitally enabled phenomenon must now also be added the original creation of pornographic material through the use of AI, depicting faces and likenesses of real and often easily identifiable people: the so-called deepfake. Although of recent and still limited expansion, the sub-phenomenon has within it all the devastating potential of accelerating the widespread usability of artificial intelligence, also challenging current international and national regulatory instruments that to date remain essentially confined to material from real and not artificial creation.
With respect to the general phenomenon of revenge porn, already the study by U.S. academics Danielle K. Citron and Mary Anne Franks in 2014 had highlighted disturbing data. Attracting attention is not only the numbers regarding the extent of the phenomenon, but especially the severity of the repercussions on the lives of the survivors, specifying from the outset that we will speak predominantly in the female of the victims, since, according to published studies, between 62%[8] and 90%[9] of the victims are women. According to that study, 50 percent of intimate photos came with first and last names and links to personal social profiles, 20 percent were posted along with email addresses or phone numbers[10].
The first time revenge porn began to be widely discussed was in 2014. The phenomenon had affected numerous Hollywood movie celebrities, including actresses Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton. Their phones had been hacked and, as an immediate consequence, their intimate contents had been spread on the network, to the detriment of their personal dignity and reputation. This event also had strong psychological repercussions on the victims.
It is necessary – in fact – to consider revenge porn by analyzing it in its complexity, as a phenomenon with implications not only legal, but above all psychological, social and cultural. The exposure it entails or can entail-when this is only threatened-has significant consequences for the lives and identity development of people who experience these traumas.
As seen, from a phenomenological point of view, the locution revenge porn does not pertain so much and only to the revenge of the partner who, after the termination of a relationship, decides to share with third parties, friends or web users, the images depicting what was their partner.
And in fact, very often, the agent’s goal is not revenge, nor is it a personal feeling: revenge porn is only one part of a broader set of injurious behaviors, brought back under the name of nonconsensual pornography (NCP). Whether revenge porn is directed at humiliating and harming the person caught in the images[11], the use of such a name may lead to semantic misunderstanding and at the same time not be representative of the entirety of the phenomenon. This is because the word revenge carries with it the implication that the recipient of revenge has-in some way-caused or instigated it by his or her own behavior. The NCP definition is more representative of the different forms of the phenomenon: dissemination of images of a sexual nature of individuals without their consent, excluding, therefore, commercial pornographic distribution[12].
There are numerous PCN sites, which encourage their users to upload intimate photos and videos of their ex-partners for revenge. It is also common for them to offer the service in the context of forums, where other users have the opportunity to post derogatory or vulgar comments about women in pictures. The first of these sites was created in 2010 by Hunter Moore. In just 3 months in 2011, it received 10,000 photo uploads. At the time, the FBI investigation focused on determining whether the material had been stolen. The conviction that followed was based on identity theft and unauthorized access to victims’ accounts[13]. In any case, many other nonconsensual pornography sites have since been created that have a large following[14].
Among the immediate consequences of exposing one’s intimate images to the public (precisely because they are often associated with identifying references) are sexual harassment and threats: anonymous strangers may send e-mails and messages threatening rape and other violence. Some have been told, “First I will rape you, then I will kill you.”[15].
The phenomenon is growing rapidly, not only because of the increasing ease of sharing and dissemination of images, but also because of the normalization of affective and sexual scouting through the creation and exchange of the material object of future violation-as in the case of sexting. To get an idea of how usual it is, especially among minors, to share sexually oriented content, we can cite a 2018 study conducted within the American Medical Association. It was estimated that out of 110,380 underage participants, 14.8% and 27.4%, respectively, had sent or received sext. Furthermore, the percentages of those who had forwarded one of these sexts without consent or had undergone such forwarding are 12% and 8.4%, respectively[16].
It has become infamous, in Canada, the case of Amanda Todd, a 15-year-old girl who in 2012 took her own life after a nude photo of herself was sent to her friends and schoolmates[17].
In many cases, the minors who sent in their photos were coerced or received strong pressure to do so. According to a recent study, girls and non-binary people would receive the most pressure (77.5% and 77.8%), followed by boys (68.4%)[18]. According to a survey conducted by the Massachusetts Aggression Reduction Center, moreover, most of the time these incidents occur in the context of close relationships[19].
Among younger people, the phenomenon of sextortion (from sex and extortion, the practice of forcing someone to do something, often sexual acts, by threatening to publish nude photos or sexual information[20]).
In a study conducted by Snap[21], nearly two-thirds of Generation Z respondents (ages 13-24) across all platforms and devices-not just Snapchat-said that they or friends were targeted in the mode of “catfishing“[22] or were hacked by criminals who stole explicit personal images or other private information. In both cases, the material obtained was used to extort money or other intimate content.
According to Thorn, the startup co-founded by Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore, 1 in 4 victims experience episodes of sextortion as early as age 13. Almost half of the victims are threatened on a daily basis in order to extort new images, which feed this cycle of abuse[23].
Another study in 2019 highlighted how the numbers of minors involved is percentageally higher than the numbers of adults on the respective samples analyzed. It can easily be inferred that younger people, born with smartphones, are naturally more inclined to expose themselves through these tools. That study, published by Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, found that 8.02 percent reported having been victims of NCP, while 5.12 percent reported having disseminated the material, creating NCP. Most victims (about 70 percent), were subjected to the conduct of their current partner (31.15 percent) or a previous partner (39.75 percent). NCP perpetrators also stated the relationship they had with their victims: in most cases it was their partner (39.1%) orex-partner (24.36%), followed by friends and strangers[24]. Furthermore, according to another study published by Cyber Civil Rights Initiative during the Covid-19 emergency, pre-pandemic physical victimization proved to be a reliable predictor of sextortion incidents that occurred during the pandemic[25].
Another problematic aspect also lies in the lack of awareness-especially of minors-in the use of social channels, from the most innocuous TikTok to OnlyFans: there is a lack of perception that one can leave indelible marks on one’s digital image, negatively affecting all aspects of one’s life. Caution in sharing not only protects against potential exposure to sexual predators, but also against injury to one’s digital reputation.
According to recent analysis, for example, about 90 percent of employers use search engines and social media to gather information about candidates for jobs, and about 80 percent have turned down a candidate because of that same information. The most common reasons given are lifestyle concerns, inappropriate comments, and inappropriate photos and videos. Selectors do not ask the victims whether they posted the images to them or whether the images were uploaded against their will. Employers simply do not want to risk hiring people whose public image could have a negative influence on corporate reputation[26].
In Italy, too, according to similar research carried out by Adecco (“Work Trends Study” 2019/2021), recruiting activity is mainly carried out online, and in particular, 43.8 percent of it on social media (so-called social recruiting). 44.1 percent of recruiters happened to exclude a candidate after viewing his or her social profiles, especially in the case of discovering inappropriate photographs.
Several studies have highlighted the heavy mental health consequences for victims: post-traumatic stress syndrome, anxiety and depression, humiliation, problems having intimate relationships, loss of self-esteem and self-confidence. The described symptoms are often accompanied by the presence of so-called coping, or coping strategies, denial or avoidance mechanisms with respect to the NCP event. These are all negative consequences that are also normally found in survivors of rape and other types of sexual assault[27].
According to psychiatrists Mudasir Kamal and William J. Newman, the effects on the psyche are anger, guilt, paranoia, depression, and suicidal instincts. From here, personal relationships can quickly deteriorate, leading to isolation. The long-term consequences on victims of revenge porn are similar to those found in victims of child pornography: humiliation and a sense of helplessness[28].
The criminalization of the phenomenon
It is very clear that a phenomenon of this magnitude and severity needs to receive a regulatory framework to deal with it, both by ensuring protection and assistance to victims and by sanctioning perpetrators and supporting the prevention contrast and the activation of timely safeguards to prevent or contain the dissemination of images.
At the international level, national regulations have fitted into the framework of existing conventions, most notably the “Convention (UN) on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women” of 1979 and the “Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violencea” of 2011 (the so-called Istanbul Convention). When they were signed, however, no thought was given to the new violence, carried out through means barely imaginable at the time.
The Philippines was among the first states to introduce specific regulations against revenge porn, with the“Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009” [Under this act, conduct involving a series of photos or videos of a sexual nature that were taken without the consent of the person involved and under circumstances in which that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy is punishable. Thus, material filming, copying or reproduction, sale or distribution, publication or dissemination, display or exhibition, as well as having facilitated the preceding conduct are punishable] due to the early and wide spread of the phenomenon in the country, with sentences of up to seven years in prison. However, it was soon realized that merely responding in terms of sanctions was not an effective safeguard.
The real challenge, in fact, is to have the ability to intervene preemptively or, at least, promptly, trying to prevent the breach from causing the ongoing and permanent damage that characterizes releases of personal material.
The United States represents the most advanced legislative laboratory on the subject. In fact, currently 48 states, joined by the District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico, have introduced specific legislation to punish NCP conduct. Penalties vary widely, from cases where up to one year in prison is provided, to those where the most serious offense can result in up to ten years in prison[29].
Proving that anyone can be affected, there is the case of Texan Joe Barton, a U.S. congressman, whose image was harmed by an unauthorized broadcast in 2017. The Republican politician had sent an intimate photo to a woman with whom he was in a relationship, only to find himself exposed all over social media[30].
In a paper prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, analyst Samantha Brunick considered the difficulties faced by the private individual who becomes the victim of such an assault. For people who don’t know how to take action, he recommends turning to associations in the U.S. that provide free legal aid for victims, such as The Cyber Civil Rights Legal Project[31].
Cases involving minors and sexual extortion, in the FBI’s experience, are the most devastating on victims’ lives. “Oncethe criminal gets hold of the image, that child’s life is turned upside down,” argues Special Agent Ryan Barrett[32].
However, the absence of a federal revenge porn law is being criticized, not least because legislation would be needed to deal with the new related phenomena, such as the use of AI deep fakes for image creation. In fact, Rebecca Delfino of Loyola Law School has proposed a possible draft of a “Pornographic Deepfake Criminalization Act,” structuring a series of extra-legal support tools that could accompany the legislation, from awareness-raising interventions to technological responses to the phenomenon[33].
In England and Wales, revenge porn has been an offence since 2015: prison sentences of up to two years are available[34]. In Scotland, by contrast, the regulations introduced in 2016 allow for penalties of up to five years in prison[35].
A hotline, Revenge Porn Helpline, was established in the United Kingdom in 2015. In the early days it received between 50 and 60 reports per month. In 2022, it received 923 phone calls, and the chatbot introduced in February that year was activated 5826 times[36].
The Code Red intervention
Specific regulations on revenge porn were introduced in Italy in 2019. Within the so-called Red Code[37], in force since 09.08.2019,Article 612 – ter of the Criminal Code, “Unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit images or videos,” has been included. This offense punishes the conduct of anyone who, after making or taking sexually explicit images or videos intended to remain private, sends, delivers, assigns, publishes or disseminates them without the consent of the persons depicted. Any person who has received or otherwise acquired the same images or videos and makes the same use of them for the purpose of causing harm to the persons depicted shall also be punished. The penalty is imprisonment of one to six years and a fine of 5,000 to 15,000 euros. In addition, aggravating factors are provided for the commission by persons related or already related by emotional relationship to the victim, by telematic means or to the detriment of a person in a condition of physical or mental inferiority or to the detriment of a pregnant woman. Except in the latter case, it is a crime prosecutable on complaint by the offended person.
Since the introduction, several sentences have made headlines, such as that of the Sulmona District Court, which in 2023 sentenced a 22-year-old man to one year and four months’ imprisonment for disseminating and then removing after a few minutes nude images of his ex-girlfriend[38].
Total court cases, as of September 2023, were already 4821, in 69% of which the victims were female and 17% were minors[39].
In a case of particular interest, the Supreme Court recently had occasion to address some hitherto dubious issues in the case law of the merits[40].
First, the court held that the crime is consummated with the first sending of the images, even if directed to a single person, regardless of whether-as in the case at hand-it was directed to a family member of the victim, who was not interested in feeding subsequent disseminations. In fact, the provision “makes no issue of the reiteration of the diffusive conduct, nor does it ‘quantify’ or qualify in any way the harmful diffusion of the protected good“; and with respect to the latter, the Court emphasizes the protection guaranteed by the rule to the victim’s sexual self-determination[41].
In addition, the Court confronted the purpose of harm that characterizes further disseminations (in which it also includes those who received the material directly from the victim), confirming the problematic interpretative direction that identifies the subjective element in specific intent, determined by an incomplete normative provision. And in fact, Art. 612 ter paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, in punishing further dissemination, requires that it be done with the purpose of causing harm to the portrayed subjects, and this is likely so as not to generalize the punishability of the revenge porn unaware (the case of the person who receives material whose criminal origin he has no basis for deriving and then disseminates it in turn). The legislature, using a perimeter of punishability not on the material element, but on the subjective element of the norm (sub specie specific intent) has, however, effectively created a gray area of non-punishability for those individuals who, while aware that they have received material originating from NCP, disseminate it without any purpose of specific harm to the subjects filmed. In the latter case, according to current Supreme Court guidance, it would not be possible to derive specific intent from mere awareness of the non-consensual origin of the pornographic material.
Finally, what is to be understood by “sexually explicit” images is clarified. In particular, the Court concludes that “For the purposes of the crime under Art. 612 ter of the Criminal Code, the unlawful dissemination of sexually explicit content may have as its subject matter images or videos depicting sexual acts or genital organs or even other erogenous parts of the human body, such as breasts or buttocks, nude or in conditions and context such as to evoke sexuality“.
It remains, however, doubtful and problematic whether the rule can also be applied to cases of the production of verisimilitude (but not true) images via AI deepfake, without having to resort residually to other cases. In light of the extensive and growing use of the instrument, the jurisprudence will probably soon have to confront this interpretive dilemma as well; unless, as proposed in other jurisdictions, they plan to intervene soon with the introduction of an additional and specific case.
Also decisive for the enactment of specific sanctioning regulations were, in Italy, the cases concerning first Tiziana Cantone, then Congresswoman Giulia Sarti. The former in particular highlighted a serious systemic flaw in the approach to protecting the victim, whose intimate videos had spread considerably on social media and the webingeneral, so much so that it led to the woman’s suicide more than a year after the complaint.
In Italy, too, the most recent debate has gradually focused not only on strictly sanctioning aspects but also on those related to the protection of offended persons and the need for preventive and timely intervention for potential victims. Still, in fact, one in three victims think that such conduct does not constitute a crime in our country[42].
Law enforcement tools
From a technical point of view, the reaction aimed at preventing or limiting the dissemination of the images must start with an immediate denunciation that allows the activation of the police force and the ability of the latter to interact internally with specialized departments, such as the Communications Police. In fact, specialized technical activity is needed in a police and judicial intervention context.
In the case of WhatsApp or Telegram, it is possible for law enforcement to identify duplicate content and use various techniques to neutralize it (in a peer-to-peer network it is necessary, for example, to identify points of disclosure). Consider that there are currently hundreds of chats on Telegram dedicated exclusively to the exchange of NCP material (and growing all the time)[43].
You do not work at the beginning to curb the content, but to rebuild the ramification of the shares. There are tools that can understand how the communication occurred and can identify the devices at either end of the communication with considerable effectiveness. In fact, common messaging systems are end-to-end networks, thus without dubious or anonymous exchange points. It may be difficult, because of the principles of cryptography on which they are based, to know with certainty what has been disclosed; however, it is easy to ascertain whether communication has taken place and between whom. Each message has a sender and a recipient, whether it is a single address or a group. Each recipient of content can become a sender, and through this relationship branching can be reconstructed. It is also possible to damage the content originally shared; in fact, what we normally forward is not saved on our device, but on the first sender device.
If the disclosure takes place on the Web, the matter changes, since the aforementioned element of easy tracking of the content’s path is lacking. However, uploading a piece of content to a social network such as Facebookmakes easy and certain removal possible. However, one should not confuse simple reporting to the site with a true active removal operation, for which highly specialized personnel are needed.
As you can imagine, there remains the problem of already downloaded content. It is complicated, because of the difficult tracking of content, that a user can be prevented from downloading a file, wait some time, and share it again. It must be borne in mind, however, that because of the enormous mass of data we are inundated with on a daily basis, the commonly adopted model is one of content acceptance but not retention (file saving). In the most egregious cases of dissemination of intimate images, rescue tends to occur when the incident has become newsworthy.
Regarding the issue of law enforcement training, it is necessary for those receiving the complaint to be able to understand that often it is not the image as such that is the problem. In fact, images are frequently disseminated that are the result of legal filming because they are made by consenting persons of legal age and sometimes even initially exchanged consensually. It is therefore necessary to set aside the legal aspect of the origin of the image (or the first sharing) and focus on the illicit subsequent dissemination and technical aspects of it, as well as the psychological impact of the act on the person portrayed. If following a complaint we are limited to a report to Facebook or Instagram, for example, we are taking an ineffective approach, not for lack of means, but for lack of knowledge of the phenomenon.
Even in cases of sextortion, action can be taken to neutralize the threat in a short time. Also, if you are in possession of the images with which you are being blackmailed, you can track them down and delete them. Moreover, by collaborating with platforms such as YouTube or those under Meta, it is possible to provide the images; thus, by already knowing the footprint of the file, they are able to prevent its publication before it even happens.
In addition, from 2021, Art. 144 bis in the Privacy Code, which provides for the possibility of making reports or complaints to the Privacy Authority for individuals who have a well-founded concern that their explicit images have been disseminated without consent. If the Authority considers the report to be well-founded, it shall take a measure within 48 hours to prevent the dissemination of the material and forward it to the digital platforms. To this end, the Authority has activated a dedicated platform on its website[44] which, however, given its recent introduction, still does not allow to measure the effective prevention and implementation capacity of early response.
Since the activation of the service, measures and referrals have increased by leaps and bounds: in the first eleven months of 2023, there were 264 interventions by the Authority compared to 51 in 2022; referrals, on the other hand, more than tripled from one year to the next[45].
The loneliness of minors
As mentioned at the outset of this reflection, minors are the most exposed and vulnerable victims. There are several studies that have pointed out, even recently, that more and more images are being shared privately between minors themselves and then disseminated without their consent, through images stolen from younger children or extorted through sextortion, fueling a so-called “self-produced” child pornography market[46].
It seems necessary to raise awareness among teens and parents about the first mode of defense against predators: protecting sexual identity in the digital sphere. A neutral, sometimes superficial, approach to publishing and sharing various forms of nudity, one’s own or one’s children’s, is now common. Lowering one’s defenses about what one shares publicly, moreover, only makes one even more vulnerable and casual in the exchanges that take place in the (supposedly) private sphere.
As highlighted, very often sextortion incidents originate from material produced in a serene condition by the victims themselves, perhaps intended for one or a select few people, or even for storage only on their own device.
Minors, digital natives, learn – even before they can read and write – how to relate through electronic devices within the digital ecosystem: their entire relationship life is progressively structured through social networks and constructed through image sharing. Therefore, from the onset of sexual interest and their sexual affectivity, the net is the natural landing place and social media the extended relationship context.
Sharing images of one’s body and sexuality with friends or partners, therefore, has become the widespread norm of discovery and fostering, regardless of the social background or geographic origin of the children[47].
This explains the numbers of the spread of the phenomenon of non-consensual child pornography and the difficulty of basing prevention solely on generic reporting of dangerousness of the network. When the actual occurrences then take place, minors also find it more difficult to seek and find help. Quite often, as in cases of cyberbullying, they tend to isolate themselves and hide the problem, delaying the activation of support and technical containment of the spread, which is instead always possible. It is no coincidence that in many countries there are active campaigns in schools aimed at effective education of minors in responsible digital behavior and to inform them how to defend themselves, react and stop the sextortion (also widespread among minors themselves) and that in most advanced democratic countries there are active hotlines dedicated to minors specifically concerning the phenomenon of revenge porn.
Prof. Avv. Roberto De Vita
Avv. Giada Caprini
Avv. Marco Della Bruna
References
[1] Compared to previous insights, in fact, the phenomenon has continued to grow: R. De Vita, M. Della Bruna, Non Consensual Pornography: from revenge porn to sexual extortion., Eurispes Cyber Security Observatory, 12/17/2019.
[2] https://cybercivilrights.org/2017-research-infographic/
[3] www.cybercivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/RPStatistics.pdf
[4] https://www.permessonegato.it/doc/PermessoNegato_StateofRevenge_2022.pdf
[5] https://www.permessonegato.it/doc/PermessoNegato_Ricerca_Revenge_2022.pdf
[6] The Fool, “Revenge Porn Research“.
[7] V.C. Cordeiro, Prevalence and impact of cyber sextortion on teenage boys, Humanium, 21.11.2023.
[8] www.cybercivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/RPStatistics.pdf
[10] D.K. Citron, M.A. Franks, Criminalizing Revenge Porn, 9 Wake Forest Law Review 345, 2014
[13] D. Tolentino, FBI investigation into Is Anyone Up? shows legal limitations in revenge porn cases, 16.10.2018.
[14] S. Bates, Revenge porn and mental health: A qualitative analysis of the mental health effects of revenge porn on female survivors, Feminist Criminology, Vol. 12(1) 22-42, 2017.
[15] D.K. Citron, Hate Crimes in Cyberspace, Harvard University Press, 05.09.2016.
[16] S. Madigan, A. Ly, C. L. Rash et al, Prevalence of Multiple Forms of Sexting Behavior Among youth, JAMA Pediatr., 2018
[17] www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/19960162/amanda-todd-memorial-for-teenage-cyberbullying-victim
[18] Parts K, Sanders CE, Englander EK. Sexting at an Early Age: Patterns and Poor Health-Related Consequences of Pressured Sexting in Middle and High School. J Sch Health. 2023 Jan;93(1):73-81. doi: 10.1111/josh.13258. Epub 2022 Oct 17. PMID: 36251455; PMCID: PMC10092123.
[19] E. Englander, Coerced Sexting and Revenge Porn Among Teens, Bullying, Teen Aggression and Social Media. March/April. 19-21
[20] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sextortion
[21] https://www.weprotect.org/blog/two-thirds-of-gen-z-targeted-for-online-sextortion-new-snap-research/
[22] The practice of pretending on social media to be someone different in order to deceive or attract another person, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/catfishing#google_vignette
[23] www.thorn.org/sextortion/
[24] Y. Ruvalcaba, A. A. Eaton, Nonconsensual Pornography among U.S Adults: A Sexual Scripts Framework on Victimization, Perpetration, and Health Correlates for Women and Men, Psychology of Violence, 10(1), 68-78.
[25] https://cybercivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/COVID-and-Sextortion-Eaton-2022.pdf
[26] K. Coleman, 52 Online Reputation Statistics for 2023, Status Labs; Online Reputation in a Connected World., JOB-HUNT 1, 3, 8 (Jan. 2010); S. Bond, A messy digital footprint can cost you a job, Financial Times, 12.10.2018.
[27] Murça A, Cunha O, Almeida TC. Prevalence and Impact of Revenge Pornography on a Sample of Portuguese Women. Sex Cult. 2023 Jun 3:1-17. doi: 10.1007/s12119-023-10100-3. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37360017; PMCID: PMC10239214; S. Bates, Revenge porn and mental health: A qualitative analysis of the mental health effects of revenge porn on female survivors, cit.; R. Campbell, E. Dworkin, G. Cabral, An Ecological Model of the Impact of Sexual Assault On Women’s Mental health, Sage Publications, 2009
[28] M. Kamal, W. J. Newman, Revenge Pornography: Mental Health Implications And Related Legislation, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 44 (3) 359, 367, 2016.
[29] www.cybercivilrights.org/revenge-porn-laws/
[30] A. Bernstein, Is Republican Congressman Joe Barton A Victim Of Revenge Porn?, Newsweek/Reuters, 11/22/2017.
[31] S. Brunch, Revenge Porn: Can Victims Get Images Off the Internet?, in Cyber Misbehavior, May 2016 Volume 64 Number 3.
[32] FBI, FBI Launches Sextortion Awareness Campaign in Schools, 03.09.2019.
[33] R.A. Delfino, Pornographic Deepfakes: The Case for Federal Criminalization of Revenge Porn’s Next Tragic Act, Fordham Law Review, Vol. 88 issue 3, 2019.
[34] Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015.
[35] Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016.
[36] https://revengepornhelpline.org.uk/assets/documents/rph-report-2022.pdf?_=1681885542
[37] L. July 19, 2019, no. 69: Amendments to the Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, and other provisions on the protection of victims of domestic and gender-based violence
[38] P. Iavarone, She leaves him, he posts video of ex naked then deletes it after a few minutes. Convicted the same, 24.11.2023.
[39] Ministry of the Interior, Department of Public Security, Central Directorate of Criminal Police, The Point. Prejudice and violence against women, December 2023.
[40] Cass. pen. sec. V, sent. no. 14927 (hearing Feb. 22, 2023, dep. April 7, 2023), rel. Brancaccio.
[41] This passage stimulated the observation that even just showing the images, without actual divestment, would be enough to affect the victim’s self-determination: https://www.sistemapenale.it/it/scheda/caletti-la-prima-pronuncia-di-legittimita-sullart-612-ter-cp#_ftnref26
[42] https://www.permessonegato.it/doc/PermessoNegato_Ricerca_Revenge_2022.pdf
[43] https://www.permessonegato.it/doc/PermessoNegato_StateofRevenge_2022.pdf
[44] https://servizi.gpdp.it/diritti/s/revenge-porn-scelta-auth; https://www.garanteprivacy.it/home/docweb/-/docweb-display/docweb/9811771
[45] B.L. Mazzei, Revenge porn, stops decided by the Guarantor quintupled in 2023, 21.12.2023.
[46] Quayle, E. Self-produced images, sexting, coercion and children’s rights. ERA Forum 23, 237-251 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-022-00714-9.
[47] Internet Watch Foundation, Hotline reports ‘shocking’ rise in the sextortion of boys, 09/18/2023.
