Content Regulation / Censorship, Indecency / Obscenity
Reno v. ACLU
United States
Antigone Books L.L.C. v. Horne
Closed Expands Expression
Key Details
- Mode of Expression
Books / Plays, Non-verbal Expression - Date of Decision
July 10, 2015 - Outcome
Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional, Other - Case Number
Case No. 2:14-cv-02100-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. 2014)
- Region & Country
United States, North America
- Judicial Body
First Instance Court - Type of Law
Criminal Law, Constitutional Law - Themes
Content Regulation / Censorship, Indecency / Obscenity - Tags
Content-Based Restriction
Content Attribution Policy
Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:
- Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
- Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
Case Analysis
Case Summary and Outcome
Arizona enacted a statute aimed at addressing “revenge porn” (porn that invades a person’s privacy and is often aimed at ‘getting even’ with a former significant other). After the American Civil Liberties Union and others brought suit, the state and the Plaintiffs reached a settlement enjoining enforcement of the statute as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.
Facts
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), joined by several other affected organizations, filed a lawsuit in September 2014, challenging the constitutionality of a law (Arizona Revised Statutes Section 13-1425) criminalizing the disclosure and display of a nude person or a person engaged in sexual activities. This law was aimed at culling “revenge porn” where people have been posting nude pictures of their former significant others in an effort to get back at them.
Decision Overview
On July 10, 2015, the Court approved a joint settlement between the parties which halts enforcement of the Arizona statute and awarded attorney fees to Plaintiffs.
Decision Direction
Quick Info
Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
Expands Expression
This case expands expression by invalidating a law that criminalized the dissemination of nude pictures and pictures displaying sexual relations.
Global Perspective
Quick Info
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
Table of Authorities
National standards, law or jurisprudence
- U.S., Arizona Rev. Stat. § 13-1425
It is unlawful to intentionally disclose, display, distribute, publish, advertise or offer a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording of another person in a state of nudity or engaged in specific sexual activities if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure.
Case Significance
Quick Info
Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.
Official Case Documents
Official Case Documents:
- Order 11/26/14
http://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/104%20-%20Order%20granting%20Joint%20MO%20for%20Stay%20of%20Proceedings%20and%20Enforcement%20of%20ARS%2013-1425.pdf - Final Decree
http://mediacoalition.org/files/litigation/antigone-books-brnovich-final-decree.pdf
Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:
- Antigone Books v. Horne - Challenge to Arizona's Nude Photo Law
https://www.aclu.org/cases/free-speech/antigone-books-v-horne-challenge-arizonas-nude-photo-law
Have comments?
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.