Senate approves fix to 'revenge porn' law

The Texas Senate on Sunday approved legislation designed to protect the 2015 “revenge porn” law, which made it a crime to share intimate or sexually explicit photos and videos without consent, from a court challenge.

Approved 31-0 by the Senate after last month's 136-0 vote in the House, the bill next goes to Gov. Greg Abbott.

House Bill 98 seeks to address concerns cited by the Tyler-based 12th Court of Appeals, which ruled last year that the revenge porn law was unconstitutionally broad because it could be used to punish anybody who reposted an image online, even those who did not know that the visual material came from a revenge porn scenario.

HB 98 specifies that photos and videos must be posted “with the intent to harm” the person depicted and that the offender knew that the victim had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private.

"My hope is this bill will continue to ensure that Texans are protected from the unlawful disclosure of visual material," Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, said Sunday.

The revenge porn law was passed in 2015 after victims complained of harassment, stalking and humiliation when intimate photos and videos were published online, typically by a former partner or spouse.

A violation is a state jail felony with a maximum punishment of two years in jail and a $10,000 fine. Under the law, it doesn’t matter if the images were recorded consensually or provided by the victim.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court, is reviewing the 12th Court’s ruling and will determine whether the revenge porn law can be enforced or should be struck down.

The court has no deadline to issue that opinion.

HB 98, however, would not address a second issue before the Court of Criminal Appeals that could undermine the revenge porn law.

The 12th Court also found that the law violates the First Amendment by requiring the government to examine what was depicted in photos or videos to determine whether the law was broken. Such a “content-based” restriction violates essential free-expression protections, the court said.