Walters: Some Aspects of Calif.'s SB 255 Go Too Far

SACRAMENTO — Both the state Senate and Assembly passed SB 255 this week, possibly giving California law enforcement officials their first tool to battle so-called “revenge porn."

Gov. Jerry Brown has 30 days to sign the bill into law. If signed, SB 255 would take effect immediately.

SB 255, introduced by state Sen. Anthony Cannella, would amend a section of the Penal Code and make it a crime to "cause serious emotional distress" to others by distributing over the Internet nude or semi-nude images of them.

Images in violation, as defined by the bill, would include portions of genitals and, in the case of a female, portions of breasts below the top of the areola, that is either "uncovered or visible through less than fully opaque clothing."

SB 255 would punish convicted operators with six-month jail sentences and imposing fines of $1,000 — even if the pictures were originally taken with consent.  Subsequent fines would amount to penalties not exceeding $2,000, along with one-year jail sentences.

The bill would prohibit only images taken by the person posting them, meaning that self-photos aren’t protected.

XBIZ asked adult entertainment attorney Lawrence Walters of the Walters Law Group on Friday to discuss the piece of legislation's ramifications, particularly for online adult operators.

XBIZ: Larry, what's your take on California's legislation to curb revenge porn?

LARRY WALTERS:  It goes without saying that the activity of ‘revenge porn’ is reprehensible and slimy. The perpetrators should face legal consequences.

But SB 255 goes too far in some ways, and is oddly inadequate in others. Initially, I have a fundamental concern with criminalizing the publication of material that is still considered protected speech. The agreement to maintain the privacy of intimate photographs does not take those images outside the realm of First Amendment protection. Imposing jail time against those who record and publish such images seems counter to free speech principles, and somewhat of an over-reaction to the problem.

A better solution may have been to create a private civil cause of action against those who released such private photos, along with statutory damages and attorneys fees. Injunctions could also be available against the publishers of material found to violate the state. There would be no shortage of California attorneys coming to the rescue of ex-girlfriends (and boyfriends) who have been victimized by this conduct, so long as there was a financial incentive to do so.

 A crushing financial judgment would be sufficient punishment in these cases, without slicing off another piece of content that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment, and putting it in the criminal realm. The state of Florida rejected a similar revenge porn proposal last term, after serious constitutional questions were raised about the proposed statute’s validity. 

XBIZ: How about self-photos? The bill was changed by lawmakers in the last hours to not protect those types of pictures.

WALTERS: While the bill seeks to severely punish those who record and release intimate moments, it does nothing to address the more common phenomena of "selfies";  i.e., pictures taken by one’s self, with one’s own camera. The California bill requires that the perpetrator also be the photographer. The same injustice is done to a victim who’s private photo is released by an ex-boyfriend who received a self-produced, erotic "gift" before the relationship soured.  Under SB 255, those victims appear to be out of luck.

XBIZ: How about other concerns with the bill?

WALTERS: The final concern with the bill relates to its potential application of the criminal penalties to online service providers or websites that might ultimately distribute these pictures uploaded by users, without any knowledge that they were made public without necessary consent. There is no realistic way that a website operator could determine whether each erotic image provided by a user was accompanied by the necessary level of approval or consent by the person(s) depicted.  Section 230 and DMCA safe harbor specifically recognize that such burden would be unreasonable.

However, given the potential for application of accomplice liability theories, such as "aiding and abetting" or "conspiracy," an online service provider could theoretically get dragged into a criminal prosecution under this new bill, as a party who substantially assisted in the publication of the image, or who formed an agreement to publish the image.  Exemptions should be built into any law like this, protecting unwitting website operators who merely provide web space for users to upload material of their choosing. Both the First Amendment and the policies underlying Section 230 immunity require this sort of exemption.

View SB 255 (amended Sept. 3)

Related:  

Copyright © 2025 Adnet Media. All Rights Reserved. XBIZ is a trademark of Adnet Media.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.

More News

NC Governor Vetoes Bill Targeting Adult, Could Face Override

North Carolina Governor Josh Stein today vetoed a bill imposing new regulations that adult industry observers have warned could push adult websites and platforms to ban most adult creators and content.

25,000 Sign Petition to Legalize Pornography in Ukraine

An OnlyFans model’s petition to decriminalize pornography in Ukraine has amassed the 25,000 signatures required for official consideration by President Volodymyr Zelensky.

WannaCollab Joins Pineapple Support as Supporter-Level Sponsor

WannaCollab has joined the ranks of over 70 adult businesses and organizations committing funds and resources to Pineapple Support.

FSC Unpacks SCOTUS Age Verification Ruling in Webinar

The Free Speech Coalition conducted a public webinar Tuesday to help adult industry stakeholders understand the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FSC v. Paxton, and its potential implications.

UK Lawmaker Calls for Appointment of 'Porn Minister'

Baroness Gabrielle Bertin, the Conservative member of Parliament who recently convened a new anti-pornography task force, is calling for the appointment of a “minister for porn,” according to British news outlet The Guardian.

FSC Toasts Jeffrey Douglas for 30 Years of Service

n the very same evening when the adult industry was hit hard by the Supreme Court ruling supporting Texas’ controversial age verification law, HB 1181, members of the Free Speech Coalition board, staff and supporters gathered to celebrate Jeffrey Douglas’ 30 years as board chair — a fitting reflection of his reputation as an eternal optimist.

TTS Opens UK Testing Location

Talent Testing Service (TTS) has opened a new U.K. location in Ware, Hertfordshire.

FSC: Age-Verification Laws Go Into Effect in South Dakota, Georgia, Wyoming on July 1

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has published a statement regarding new age verification laws set to go into effect tomorrow in South Dakota, Georgia, and Wyoming.

FSC Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Texas AV Law

The Free Speech Coalition (FSC) has released a statement responding to last week's Supreme Court decision on FSC v. Paxton, the Texas age verification law.

Sex Work CEO Debuts Upgraded 'GPTease' AI Assistant

Sex Work CEO has introduced the new Canvas in-chat editing feature to its AI-powered, NSFW text generator, GPTease.

Show More