Raimondo vetoes 'revenge porn' bill, saying it could chill free speech

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Exercising her veto power for the first time since taking office, Governor Raimondo has nixed a bill to prohibit the posting of "revenge porn" and create new criminal penalties, at the same time, for those who engage in "sextortion.’’ 

In her veto message signed late Monday night, Raimondo said, in part,  "The 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, H7537 does not include basic safeguards such as the requirement that 'intent to harass' be demonstrated for conduct to be criminal."

"The breadth and lack of clarity may have a chilling effect on free speech,'' she wrote in a letter to lawmakers, made public by the General Assembly.

"We do not have to choose between protecting privacy rights and respecting the principles of free speech. The right course of action is to follow the example of other states, and craft a more carefully worded law that specifically addresses the problem of revenge porn, without implicating other types of constitutionally protected speech."

House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello had this response to Raimondo's veto:

“I am extremely disappointed that the Governor vetoed an important tool to protect victims of sexual exploitation. I am surprised because she never raised any concerns during the four months that it was under consideration by the House," he said. "We passed this bill, 68 to 1, which would have given victims of sexual exploitation some common sense protections against increasingly shocking violations of their privacy on the Internet.”

Asked whether he would call the lawmakers back for a veto-override session, Mattiello said: “I want to see if there are other vetoes, and then I will talk with the Senate President to determine the next course of action. Our options are to override this veto, or pass the legislation again early next year while we are in session and then override her veto at that time should she choose to do so again.”

The bill to prohibit the posting of nude or sexually explicit images of someone without their knowledge and consent  had become an annual goal for Atty. Gen. Peter Kilmartin, who has not yet commented on Raimondo's action. 

A first offense would be a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, subject to imprisonment of up to one year, a fine of $1,000, or both. Repeat offenders would face up three years in prison, a fine of up to $3,000, or both. 

The legislation also created criminal penalties for those who engage in "sextortion," which Kilmartin's office described as a new cybercrime that occurs when victims are extorted into paying money - or providing more photos or videos - to remove the images. The potential penalty: up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

"This legislation protects victims who are being exploited, harassed, and stalked by individuals who willfully and intentionally post intimate photos and videos to exact revenge or cause humiliation," said Kilmartin, after the last votes were cast. "I applaud the General Assembly for recognizing the need to update our laws to reflect the changing nature of crime due to advances in technology."

But the bill sparked serious warnings from civil libertarians , including Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union,who said: “It is essential to recognize that this bill makes no mention of revenge or harassment, and contains no requirement that the dissemination of a photo cause harm or be intended to cause harm in order to violate the law."

“Rather, it is written so broadly that it could make criminals of people involved in neither revenge nor porn, and would have a direct impact on the First Amendment rights of the media...That is why the Media Coalition, based in New York and consisting of national organizations like the American Booksellers Association, the Association of American Publishers, and the Motion Picture Association of America, has expressed...concern about the bill’s potential impact on matters of legitimate news, commentary, and historical interest,'' Brown wrote. 

“For example, use of images of Holocaust victims or prisoners at Abu Ghraib or, to take a more recent example, the infamous Anthony Weiner photos, would likely be prohibited under the terms of this legislation.’’

After Raimondo's veto, Kilmartin issued this statement: "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. This bill was carefully worded due to our real concern for the victims who would have has a sense of justice had this bill not been vetoed.''

The lead sponsor in the House was Rep. Robert E. Craven, D-North Kingstown, and in the Senate, Sen. Erin Lynch Prata, D-Warwick.

The House vote was 68-to-1, with Rep. Edith Ajello, D-Providence, casting the only nay vote. The Senate vote was unanimous.

Lawmakers can override a veto with a vote to do so by three-fifths of the members present and voting in the Senate and in the House, but legislative leaders do not always call the Assembly back to do so.

-- This report was updated at 11:23 a.m. and 11:50 a.m. and 1:09 p.m.