Raimondo vetoes revenge porn bills

GOV. GINA M. RAIMONDO VETOED on Tuesday the Senate and House bills designed to criminalize revenge porn in Rhode Island. / PBN FILE PHOTO/MIKE SKORSKI
GOV. GINA M. RAIMONDO VETOED on Tuesday the Senate and House bills designed to criminalize revenge porn in Rhode Island. / PBN FILE PHOTO/MIKE SKORSKI

(Updated 12:50 p.m.)
PROVIDENCE – Both the Senate and House bills designed to criminalize revenge porn in Rhode Island were vetoed by Gov. Gina M. Raimondo Tuesday.

The bills, S 2540 and H 7537, “An Act Relating to Criminal Offenses – Electronic Imaging Devices,” were supported by Attorney General Peter F. Kilmartin.

In a statement released Tuesday the governor said, “I strongly support efforts to keep people safe from unwarranted intrusions and exploitation.” She said she supported the “very real and serious issue” the bills addressed.

However, in her veto she cited First Amendment concerns regarding the interpretation and definition of the phrase “for a lawful purpose” which was included to provide an exemption for third party dissemination of such photographs by organizations like the media.

- Advertisement -

She said: “This bill is apparently intended to curb the dissemination of private sexual material over the Internet, but its sweep is much broader – it could also cover works of art that depict the human body. And, unlike virtually all other similar state statutes, H 7537 does not include basic safeguards such as the requirement that ‘intent to harass’ be demonstrated for conduct to be criminal.”

The governor also said the broadness of the bills could leave the state open to litigation risk if they were to be passed as is and that she would be open to writing a new law, “without implicating other types of constitutionally protected speech,” in the next legislative session.
Kilmartin released a statement saying he was dismayed by the governor’s decision.

“My office has vetted this bill internally for over four years now and analyzed similar legislation that has been enacted in 34 other states. I am confident that after review by our criminal, civil and appellate units, as well as by the General Assembly, that we could have easily and successfully defended the constitutionality of the bill if challenged. We provided the governor’s office with documentation on the bill upon transmission and spoke directly with her office and her attorneys. We respectfully disagree with their recent analysis of this bill, and believe that this is a privacy issue for the victims not a First Amendment issue for sexploiters,” he said.

No posts to display