Content Regulation / Censorship, Indecency / Obscenity
Reno v. ACLU
Closed Expands Expression
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:
Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.
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.
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.
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 indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.
This case expands expression by invalidating a law that criminalized the dissemination of nude pictures and pictures displaying sexual relations.
Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.
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 refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.
Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.