First Amendment Lawsuit Challenges Arizona Criminal Law Banning Nude Images
Bookstores, Publishers, News Media, Librarians, and Photographers Charge Law Violates Freedom of Speech
September 23, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: 212-549-2666, media@aclu.org
PHOENIX, Ariz. – A broad coalition of bookstores, newspapers, photographers, publishers, and librarians filed a federal lawsuit today challenging a new Arizona law that criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, and the law firm Dentons US LLP, which is general counsel to the Media Coalition.
The "nude photo law" makes the display, publication, or sale of nude or sexual images without the subject’s explicit consent a felony punishable by nearly four years in prison. As written, the law could be applied to any person who distributes or displays an image of nudity – including pictures that are newsworthy, artistic, educational, or historic – without the depicted person’s consent, even images for which consent was impossible to obtain or is difficult to prove.
For example, a bookseller who sells a history book containing an iconic image such as the Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph "Napalm Girl" – the unclothed Vietnamese girl running from a napalm attack – could be prosecuted under the law. A library lending a photo book about breast feeding to a new mother, a newspaper publishing pictures of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, or a newsweekly running a story about a local art show could all be convicted of a felony.
"This law puts us at risk for prosecution," said Gayle Shanks, owner of Changing Hands Bookstore, one of the plaintiffs, which has been in operation for more than 40 years in Tempe and recently opened a location in Phoenix. "There are books on my shelves right now that might be illegal to sell under this law. How am I supposed to know whether the subjects of these photos gave their permission?"
The law was passed with the stated intent of combating "revenge porn," a term popularly understood to describe a person knowingly and maliciously posting an identifiable, private image online with the intent and effect of harming an ex-lover.
But the lawsuit argues that the law criminalizes far more than such offensive acts, and it is not limited to "revenge." A prosecutor need not prove that the person publishing the photograph intended to harm the person depicted. Likewise, a person who shares a photograph can be convicted of a felony even if the person depicted had no expectation of privacy in the image and suffered no harm. The law applies even when the person in the picture is not recognizable, and the law is not limited to "porn" – it criminalizes publication of nude and sexual images that could not possibly be considered pornography, let alone obscene.
The lawsuit charges that law is so broad and vague that it could send people to prison for sharing material that is fully protected by the First Amendment, and the plaintiffs point to past experience as reason for concern. One of the plaintiffs, Voice Media Group, publishes the Phoenix New Times, which has been harassed by law enforcement for engaging in protected speech, including the publication of nude images from a local art show.
"Arizona’s law clearly violates the First Amendment, because it criminalizes protected speech," said Lee Rowland, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. She added, "States can address malicious invasions of privacy without treading on free speech, with laws that are carefully tailored to address real harms. Arizona’s is not."
In addition to Changing Hands Bookstore, the booksellers bringing the lawsuit include Antigone Books in Tucson; Bookmans, which has stores in Tucson, Phoenix, Mesa and Flagstaff; Copper News Book Store in Ajo; and Mostly Books in Tucson. They are joined by Voice Media Group, which publishes numerous newsweeklies; the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; the Association of American Publishers; the Freedom to Read Foundation; and the National Press Photographers Association, whose members have produced images that may now be criminal to distribute in Arizona, including the “Napalm Girl” photograph mentioned earlier.
"This law will have an unconstitutional chilling effect on free speech." said David Horowitz, executive director of the Media Coalition, whose members include the plaintiff associations of publishers, librarians, and booksellers. "To comply with the law, booksellers and librarians will have to spend countless hours looking over books, magazines, and newspapers to determine if a nude picture was distributed with consent. Many store owners will simply decline to carry any materials containing nude images to avoid the risk of going to prison."
More information is at:
aclu.org/free-speech/antigone-books-v-horne-challenge-arizonas-nude-photo-law
Today’s complaint is at:
aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/az_nude_picture_complaint_0.pdf
Free Speech
Antigone Books v. Horne - Challenge to Arizona's Nude Photo Law
Free Speech
Antigone Books v. Horne - Challenge to Arizona's Nude Photo Law
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.