As recently reported by the Associated Press, the mayor of Cambridge, Maryland has been arrested and charged with posting revenge porn online. The mayor is accused of posting nude photos of a woman with whom he was in a romantic relationship. According to the report, he also posted her name, birthdate and captioned the nude photos with racial slurs and sexually explicit language.

The case is a good reminder that revenge porn, better termed as “nonconsensual pornography,” is illegal. Victims can often sue to recover civil money damages and those posting nonconsensual pornography can go to jail. As reported, in the case of the Maryland mayor, if convicted, he faces a maximum penalty of two years’ incarceration and a $5,000 fine for EACH count. The mayor was charged with 50 counts of distributing nonconsensual pornography. Being the victim of nonconsensual pornography can be devastating since intimate images can end up all over the internet including pornography sites and will, likely, be on the internet forever.

The case is also a reminder that perpetrators will not get away with posting nonconsensual pornography. The mayor tried to use different Reddit accounts to mask and disguise his identity. But as noted in the report, law enforcement officials were able to track him down through use of his IP address that linked to his internet service at his home.

The vast majority of US states and the District of Columbia have laws punishing the non-consensual distribution of intimate and sexually explicit images or videos. Nonconsensual pornography often involves a former romantic partner, but the laws apply to any nonconsensual distribution of graphic images. The statutes can be worded differently, but in general, the statutes prohibit dissemination of graphic images/video where the dissemination is done knowingly, without consent and for the purpose of harming the victim. The Maryland statute, for example, states that:

“A person may not knowingly distribute a visual representation of another identifiable person that displays the other person with his or her intimate parts exposed or while engaged in an act of sexual activity:

• with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the other person;
• (i) under circumstances in which the person knew that the other person did not consent to the distribution; or (ii) with reckless disregard as to whether the person consented to the distribution; and
• under circumstances in which the other person had a reasonable expectation that the image would remain private.”

Federal Law and the SHIELD Act

At the federal level, the SHIELD Act (Stopping Harmful Image Exploitation and Limiting Distribution) was introduced in Congress to create a federal criminal prohibition on nonconsensual pornography. While a comprehensive federal statute has yet to be enacted, federal prosecutors have pursued perpetrators under existing statutes including 18 U.S.C. § 2261A (cyberstalking), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and wire fraud statutes where appropriate. Federal jurisdiction typically attaches when electronic communications cross state lines — which is nearly always the case with internet-based distribution.

Civil Remedies: What Victims Can Sue For

Beyond criminal prosecution, victims of nonconsensual pornography have civil remedies available. The primary causes of action include:

• Invasion of privacy / public disclosure of private facts — A plaintiff must show the defendant gave unreasonable publicity to private information that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not a matter of legitimate public concern.
• Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) — Posting intimate images to cause harm satisfies the extreme and outrageous conduct element courts require.
• Defamation — When false statements accompany the images, such as fabricated sexual narratives, defamation claims attach alongside the privacy claims.
• Statutory civil causes of action — Many state revenge porn statutes now include an express private right of action, allowing victims to recover actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees without needing to prove special damages.

Courts can also issue preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering perpetrators to remove content and prohibiting further distribution. These injunctions are especially valuable because they can be served on platforms and hosting providers who are then legally obligated to take down the material.

Platform Liability and Takedown Obligations

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act has historically shielded online platforms from civil liability for third-party content. However, Congress amended Section 230 through FOSTA-SESTA in 2018 to exclude protections for platforms that knowingly facilitate sex trafficking — a category that can overlap with nonconsensual pornography in the most severe cases. Additionally, the SHIELD Act proposals include provisions that would strip Section 230 immunity from platforms that knowingly host nonconsensual intimate images after receiving notice. In practice, most major platforms have adopted policies requiring removal of such content upon reporting, and many will respond to properly documented legal demand letters even before formal litigation.

Digital Forensics: How Perpetrators Are Identified

The Cambridge mayor’s case illustrates the modern investigative toolkit available to law enforcement. IP addresses associated with account registrations and posts are routinely subpoenaed from Reddit, social media platforms, and web hosting providers. Even when perpetrators use VPNs or anonymizing services, investigators can correlate metadata, device fingerprints, behavioral patterns, and geolocation data to identify the poster. Courts have consistently held that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in IP address logs held by a third-party service provider under the third-party doctrine established in Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). Additionally, EXIF metadata embedded in photographs can reveal the device used, GPS coordinates of where a photo was taken, and the exact timestamp — all of which can corroborate identification of the perpetrator.

Steps Victims Should Take Immediately

If you are a victim of nonconsensual pornography, time is critical. The longer intimate images remain online, the more they are indexed, cached, and redistributed. Recommended immediate steps include:

• Document everything. Take screenshots of every page where the images appear, capturing URLs, dates, and any accompanying text. Courts require evidence, and platforms remove content — making screenshots essential.
• Report to the platform. Most major platforms have dedicated reporting pathways for nonconsensual intimate image abuse. Include the URLs and state specifically that the images are nonconsensual.
• Contact law enforcement. File a police report, which establishes an official record and gives investigators access to subpoena tools that private parties cannot use.
• Preserve evidence of the relationship. Texts, emails, and other communications establishing the relationship with the perpetrator can be critical to proving the lack of consent and the intent to harm.
• Consult an attorney immediately. An experienced attorney can send preservation letters to platforms, file for emergency injunctive relief, and identify all potential defendants — including those who redistributed the images.

Contact Revision Legal

The attorneys at Revision Legal represent victims of nonconsensual pornography and pursue perpetrators in both civil and criminal forums. We understand the urgency of these cases and act quickly to seek takedowns and pursue legal remedies. Contact us today through the form on this page or call us directly to speak with an attorney.