Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T10:41:21.328Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law, Privacy, and Online Dating: “Revenge Porn” in Gay Online Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2019

Ari Ezra Waldman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nonconsensual pornography, commonly known as “revenge porn,” is the dissemination of another’s sexually explicit images or videos without their consent. This article explores this phenomenon in gay and bisexual male online communities. The first part reviews the current sociological and legal literature on online dating, gay culture on the Internet, and revenge porn. Then, based on a survey of gay and bisexual male dating app users, ethnographic interviews, and an analysis of platform content moderation policies, the next part makes three related points. First, it shows that gay and bisexual men who use geosocial dating apps are more frequently victims of revenge porn than both the general population and the broader lesbian, gay, and bisexual community. Second, it shows that geosocial dating apps create powerful norms of disclosure that make sharing personal information all but required. And third, it describes how gay and bisexual male users engage in privacy navigation techniques with the goal of building trust and enhancing safety. The final substantive section then shows how inadequate protections for online privacy and inadequate legal incentives for safe platform design contribute to the problem of revenge porn. The article concludes with a summary and avenues for future research.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , November 2019 , pp. 987 - 1018
Copyright
© 2019 American Bar Foundation 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank Danielle Keats Citron, Mary Anne Franks, Andrew Santa Ana, Elisa D’Amico, Luke Boso, Scott Skinner-Thompson, Kate Klonick, Amanda Levendowski, and Paul Schwartz. Maverick James provided essential research assistance. This article was presented as the 11th Deirdre G. Martin Memorial Lecture on Privacy at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. The research was supported by a New York Law School Summer Research Grant and was approved by the New York Law School IRB.

References

REFERENCES

Acquisti, Alessandro, John, Leslie K., and Loewenstein, George. “The Impact of Relative Standards on the Propensity to Disclose.” Journal of Marketing Research 49 (April 2012): 160–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albury, Kathy, and Byron, Paul. “Queering Sexting and Sexualisation.” Media International Australia 153, no. 1 (2014): 138–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allen, Anita. Uneasy Access: Privacy for Women in a Free Society. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1988.Google Scholar
Badiou, Alain. In Praise of Love. New York: The New Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Barlow, John Perry. “A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. 1996. https://www.eff.org/cyberspace-independence.Google Scholar
Bauman, Zygmunt. Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2003.Google Scholar
Berg, Joyce, Dickhaut, John, and McCabe, Kevin. “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History.” Games and Economic Behavior 10, no. 1 (1995): 122–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bijker, Weibe, Hughes, Thomas P., and Pinch, Trevor, eds. The Social Construction of Technology Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Bilton, Nick. “Tinder, the Fast-Growing Dating App, Taps an Age-Old Truth.” New York Times. October 29, 2014.Google Scholar
Blackwell, Courtney, Birnholtz, Jeremy, and Abbott, Charles, “Seeing and Being Seen: Co-Situation and Impression Formation Using Grindr, a Location-Aware Gay Dating App.” New Media and Society 17, no. 7 (2015): 1117–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bok, Sissela. Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation. New York: Vintage Books, 1983.Google Scholar
Boso, Luke. “Dignity, Equality, and Stereotypes.” Washington Law Review 92, no. 3 (2017): 1119–83.Google Scholar
Bridges, Khiara M. “Privacy Rights and Public Families.” Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 34, no. 1 (2011): 113–74.Google Scholar
Brin, David. The Transparent Society. New York: Basic Books, 1999.Google Scholar
Brubaker, Jed R., Ananny, Mike, and Crawford, Kate. “Departing Glances: A Sociotechnical Account of ‘Leaving’ Grindr.” New Media and Society 18, no. 2 (2016): 373–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullingham, Liam, and Vasconcelos, Ana C., “‘The Presentation of Self in the Online World’: Goffman and the Study of Online Identities.” Journal of Information Science 39, no. 1 (2013): 101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callander, Denton, Holt, Martin, and Newman, Christy E.. “Just a Preference: Racialised Language in the Sex-Seeking Profiles of Gay and Bisexual Men.” Culture, Health, and Sexuality 14, no. 9 (2012): 1049–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callander, Denton, Newman, Christy E., and Holt, Martin. “Is Sexual Racism Really Racism? Distinguishing Attitudes toward Sexual Racism and Generic Racism among Gay and Bisexual Men.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 44, no. 7 (2015): 1991–2000.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Citron, Danielle Keats. “Law’s Expressive Value in Combatting Cyber Gender Harassment.” Michigan Law Review 108, no. 1 (2009): 373–415.Google Scholar
Citron, Danielle Keats. “How to Make Revenge Porn a Crime: Worried about Trampling Free Speech? Don’t Be.” Slate. November 7, 2013. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/11/making_revenge_porn_a_crime_without_trampling_free_speech.html.Google Scholar
Citron, Danielle Keats. Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Citron, Danielle Keats, and Franks, Mary Anne. “Criminalizing Revenge Porn.” Wake Forest Law Review 49, no. 2 (2014): 345–91.Google Scholar
Citron, Danielle Keats, and Wittes, Benjamin. “The Internet Will Not Break: Denying Bad Samaritans Section 230 Immunity.” Fordham Law Review 86, no. 2 (2017): 401–23.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. “The Necessity of Privacy.” Social Research 68, no. 1 (2001): 318–27.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. “Examined Lives: Informational Privacy and the Subject as Object.” Stanford Law Review 52, no. 3 (2000): 1373–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. “Cyberspace as/and Space.” Columbia Law Review 107, no. 1 (2007): 210–56.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. “Privacy, Visibility, Transparency, and Exposure.” University of Chicago Law Review 75 (2008): 181–201.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jean L. Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012.Google Scholar
Congressional Record. 141 Cong. Rec. H8460–01 (August 4, 1995).Google Scholar
Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. “The Consumption Junction: A Proposal for Research Strategies in the Sociology of Technology.” In The Social Construction of Technological Systems, eds. Bijker, Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas Parke, and Pinch, Trevor. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Duguay, Stefanie. “Dressing Up Tinderella: Interrogating Authenticity Claims on the Mobile Dating App Tinder.” Information, Communication & Society 20, no. 3 (2017): 351–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, Asia E., et al. “2017 Nationwide Online Study of Nonconsensual Porn Victimization and Perpetration: A Summary Report.” 2017. https://www.cybercivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CCRI-2017-Research-Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. “Privacy Jurisprudence and the Apartheid of the Closet, 1946-1961.” Florida State Law Review 24, no. 4 (1997): 703–840.Google Scholar
Eskridge, William N. Jr. “No Promo Homo: The Sedimentation of Antigay Discourse and the Channeling Effect of Judicial Review.” New York University Law Review 75, no. 3 (2000): 1327–411.Google Scholar
Farnden, Jody, Martini, Ben, and Raymond Choo, Kim-Kwang. “Privacy Risks in Mobile Dating Apps.” Proceedings of the 21st Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2015) (2015): 1–16, 13–15 August 2015, Fajado, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
Franks, Mary Ann. “Unwilling Avatars: Idealism and Discrimination in Cyberspace.” Columbia Journal of Gender and the Law 20, no. 1 (2009): 224–61.Google Scholar
Franks, Mary Ann. “Adventures in Victim Blaming: Revenge Porn Edition.” Concurring Opinions. February 1, 2013. https://concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/02/adventures-in-victim-blaming-revenge-porn-edition.html.Google Scholar
Franks, Mary Ann. “How to Defeat ‘Revenge Porn’: First, Recognize It’s about Privacy, Not Revenge.” Huffington Post. 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-franks/how-to-defeat-revenge-porn_b_7624900.html.Google Scholar
Franks, Mary Ann. “‘Revenge Porn’ Reform: A View from the Front Lines.” Florida Law Review 70, no. 4 (2017): 1251–337.Google Scholar
Fried, Charles. “Privacy.” Yale Law Journal 77, no. 3 (1968) 475–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Jennifer L., Ellison, Nicole B., and Heino, Rebecca D., “Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet Dating.” Communications Research 33, no. 2 (2006): 152–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gile, Krista J., and Handcock, Mark S.. “Respondent-Driven Sampling: An Assessment of Current Methodology.” Sociological Methodology 40, no. 1 (2010): 285–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilliom, John. Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Ghorayshi, Azeen, and Ray, Dri. “Grindr Is Letting Other Companies See User HIV Status and Location Data.” BuzzFeed. April 2, 2018. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/azeenghorayshi/grindr-hiv-status-privacy.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books, 1959.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Carrie, and D’Amico, Elisa. “Representing Victims of Revenge Porn.” Presentation at Internet Safety Conference, New York, 2015.Google Scholar
Goldman, Eric. “What Should We Do about Revenge Porn Sites like Texxxan?” Forbes. January 28, 2013. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/01/28/what-should-we-do-about-revenge-porn-sites-like-texxxan/#1068c2aa7eff.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack, and Wu, Tim. Who Controls the Internet?: Illusions of a Borderless World. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Grimmelmann, James. “Saving Facebook.” Iowa Law Review 94, no. 4 (2009): 1137–206.Google Scholar
Grov, Christian, et al. “Gay and Bisexual Men’s Use of the Internet: Research from the 1990s through 2013.” Journal of Sex Research 51, no. 4 (2014): 390–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, C. Winter. Geisha of a Different Kind: Race and Sexuality in Gaysian America. New York: NYU Press, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy, Jean, and Lindtner, Silvia. “Constructing a Desiring User: Discourse, Rurality, and Design in Location-Based Social Networks.” Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing, Feb. 25– Mar. 1, 2017, Portland, OR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzog, Woodrow. Privacy’s Blueprint: The Battle to Control the Design of New Technologies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzog, Woodrow. “The Public Information Fallacy.” Boston University Law Review 99: 98 (forthcoming 2019).Google Scholar
Heckathorn, Douglas. “Respondent-Driven Sampling: A New Approach to the Study of Hidden Populations.” Social Problems 44 (1997): 174–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inness, Julie C. Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
John, Leslie K., Acquisti, Alessandro, and Loewenstein, George, “Strangers on a Plane: Context-Dependent Willingness to Divulge Sensitive Information.” Journal of Consumer Research 37, no. 5 (February 2011): 858–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. “The Logic of Reciprocity: Trust, Collective Action, and the Law.” Michigan Law Review 102, no. 1 (2003): 71–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, Ronald, and Pinch, Trevor, “Users as Agents of Technological Change: The Social Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States.” Technology and Culture 37, no. 4 (1996): 763–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klonick, Kate. “The New Governors: The People, Rules, and Processes Governing Online Speech.” Harvard Law Review 131, no. 5 (2018): 1598–670.Google Scholar
Lenhart, Amanda, Ybarra, Michelle, and Price-Feeney, Myeshia. “Nonconsensual Image Sharing: One in 25 Americans Has Been a Victim of ‘Revenge Porn’.” 2016. https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/Nonconsensual_Image_Sharing_2016.pdf.Google Scholar
Levendowski, Amanda. “Using Copyright to Combat Revenge Porn.” New York University Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law 3, no. 2 (2014): 422–46.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, Catherine. Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and the Law. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Matthews, Steve. “Anonymity and the Social Self.” American Philosophical Quarterly 47, no. 4 (2010): 351–63.Google Scholar
McGeveran, William. “The Law of Friction.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 2013, no. 1 (2013): 15–67.Google Scholar
McGlotten, Shaka. Virtual Intimacies: Media, Affect, and Queer Sexuality. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Miller, Brandon. “‘Dude, Where’s Your Face?’ Self-Presentation, Self-Description, and Partner Preferences on a Social Networking Application for Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Content Analysis.” Sexuality and Culture 19, no. 4 (2015a): 637–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Brandon. “‘They’re the Modern Day Gay Bar’: Exploring the Uses and Gratifications of Social Networks for Men Who Have Sex with Men.” Computers in Human Behavior 51, part A (2015b): 476–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondada, Lorenza. “Challenges of Multimodality: Language and the Body in Social Interaction.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 20, no. 3 (2016): 336–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Sarah, and Ankerson, Megan Sapnar. “Lez Takes Time: Designing Lesbian Contact in Geosocial Networking Apps.” Critical Studies in Media Communications 33, no. 1 (2016): 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissenbaum, Helen. Privacy In Context. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Norman, Donald. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books, 1988.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Sara Ashley. “1, 100 Strangers Showed Up at His Home for Sex. He Blames Grindr.” CNN Tech. Apr. 2017. http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/14/technology/grindr-lawsuit/index.html.Google Scholar
Palen, Leysia, and Dourish, Paul. “Unpacking ‘Privacy’ for a Networked World.” Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 129 (2003): 129–36.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott. Action Theory and the Human Condition. New York: Free Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Phillips, Christian. “Self-Pornographic Representations with Grindr.” Journal of Visual Media and Anthropology 1, no. 1 (2015): 65–79.Google Scholar
Post, Robert C. “The Social Foundations of Privacy: Community and Self in the Common Law Tort.” California Law Review 77, no. 5 (1989): 957–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prosser, William. “Privacy.” California Law Review 48, no. 3 (1960): 383–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, Neil, and Hartzog, Woodrow. “Taking Trust Seriously in Privacy Law.” Stanford Technology Law Review 19 (2016): 431–72.Google Scholar
Robinson, Brandon Andrew. “‘Personal Preference’ as the New Racism: Gay Desire and Racial Cleansing in Cyberspace.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1, no. 2 (2015): 317–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosen, Jeffrey. The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America. New York: Vintage Books, 2001.Google Scholar
Rubin, Gayle. Deviations: A Gayle Rubin Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Shils, Edward. “Privacy: Its Constitution and Vicissitudes.” Law and Contemporary Problems 31 (Spring 1966): 281–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegman, Aron W., and Feldstein, Stanley, eds. Nonverbal Behavior and Communication. New York: Psychology Press, 1987.Google Scholar
Skinner-Thompson, Scott. “Outing Privacy.” Northwestern Law Review 110, no. 1 (2015): 159–222.Google Scholar
Skinner-Thompson, Scott. “Privacy’s Double Standards.” Washington Law Review 93, no. 4 (2018): 2051–106.Google Scholar
Smith, Aaron. “15% of American Adults Have Used Online Dating Sites or Mobile Dating Apps.” 2016. http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/02/11/15-percent-of-american-adults-have-used-online-dating-sites-or-mobile-dating-apps/.Google Scholar
Smith, Aaron, and Anderson, Monica. “5 Facts about Online Dating.” 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/29/5-facts-about-online-dating/.Google Scholar
Solove, Daniel J. The Digital Person: Technology and Privacy in the Digital Age. New York: NYU Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Solove, Daniel J. Understanding Privacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Stein, Edward. “Queers Anonymous: Lesbians, Gay Men, Free Speech, and Cyberspace.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 38, no. 1 (2003): 159–213.Google Scholar
Stern, Mark Joseph. “This Daily Beast Grindr Stunt Is Sleazy, Dangerous, and Wildly Unethical.” Slate. August 11, 2016. https://slate.com/technology/2016/08/the-daily-beasts-olympics-grindr-stunt-is-dangerous-and-unethical.html.Google Scholar
Strahilevitz, Lior Jacob. “A Social Networks Theory of Privacy.” University of Chicago Law Review 72, no. 4 (2005): 919–88.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Kathleen M. “First Amendment Intermediaries in the Age of Cyberspace.” University of California Los Angeles Law Review 45 (1998): 1653–81.Google Scholar
Towle, Andy. “Two NC High School Students Catfished Gay Teacher for Nude Photos on Grindr, and Passed Them Around.” Towleroad. 2017. http://www.towleroad.com/2017/05/catfish-teacher/.Google Scholar
Turkle, Sherry. Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books, 2011.Google Scholar
Tziallas, Evangelos. “Gamified Eroticism: Gay Male ‘Social Networking’ Applications and Self-Pornography.” Sexuality & Culture 19, no. 4 (2015): 759–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volokh, Eugene. “Cheap Speech and What It Will Do.” Yale Law Journal 104, no. 5 (1995): 1805–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wajcman, Judy. Feminism Confronts Technology. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Waldman, Ari Ezra. “A Breach of Trust: Fighting ‘Revenge Porn’.” Iowa Law Review 102, no. 2 (2017): 709–33.Google Scholar
Waldman, Ari Ezra. Privacy as Trust: Information Privacy for an Information Age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2018a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldman, Ari Ezra. “Designing without Privacy.” Houston Law Review 55, no. 2 (2018b): 659–727.Google Scholar
Weber, Max. Essays in Sociology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946.Google Scholar
Westin, Alan F. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Ig Publishing, 1967.Google Scholar
White, Howard B. “The Right to Privacy.” Social Research 18, no. 2 (1951): 171–202.Google Scholar
Whitfield, Darren L. “Grindr, Scruff, and on the Hunt: Predictors of Condomless Anal Sex, Internet Use, and Mobile Application Use among Men Who Have Sex with Men.” American Journal of Men’s Health 11, no. 3 (2017): 775–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wohlfeiler, Dan, et al. “How Can We Improve Online HIV and STD Prevention for Men Who Have Sex With Men? Perspectives of Hook-Up Website Owners, Website Users, and HIV/STD Directors.” AIDS Behavior 17, no. 9 (2013). doi: 10.1007/s10461-012-0375-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woolgar, Steve. “Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials.” Sociological Review 38, no. S1 (1990): 58–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

CASES CITED

Alberts v. Devine, 479 N.E.2d 113, 120 (Mass. 1985).Google Scholar
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).Google Scholar
Florida Star v. B.J.F., 491 U.S. 524, 527 (1989).Google Scholar
Gill v. Hearst Pub. Co., 253 P.2d 441, 444 (Cal. 1953).Google Scholar
Herrick v. Grindr, Opinion and Order, 17-CV-932 (VEC) (S.D.N.Y. January 25, 2018).Google Scholar
Peterson v. Idaho First Nat’l Bank, 367 P.2d 284, 290 (Idaho 1961).Google Scholar
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979).Google Scholar
State v. Rhodes, 61 N.C. 453 (1868).Google Scholar
United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976).Google Scholar
Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar

STATUTES CITED

Ala. Code § 13A-6-240 (West 2015).Google Scholar
Alaska Stat. Ann. § 11.61.120 (West 2015).Google Scholar
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1425 (Supp. 2015).Google Scholar
Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-26-302, 5-26-314 (Supp. 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cal. Penal Code § 647 (West Supp. 2016).Google Scholar
Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-7-107 (West Supp. 2015).Google Scholar
Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230.Google Scholar
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 53a-189a (West 2012 & Supp. 2016).Google Scholar
D.C. Code Ann. §§ 22-3051–57 (West 2016).Google Scholar
Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 1335 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 784.049 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-90 (West Supp. 2015).Google Scholar
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 711-1110.9 (2014).Google Scholar
Idaho Code Ann. § 18-6609 (West 2016).Google Scholar
Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. § 5/11-23.5 (2015).Google Scholar
Iowa Code Ann. § 708.7 (West 2015).Google Scholar
Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-6101(a)(8) (West 2016).Google Scholar
Ky. Rev. Stat. § 531.120 (West 2018).Google Scholar
La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:283.2 (2004 & Supp. 2016).Google Scholar
Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 17-A, § 511-A (West Supp. 2015).Google Scholar
Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-809 (West Supp. 2015).Google Scholar
Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 145e, 145f (West 2016).Google Scholar
Minn. Stat. Ann. § 617.261 (2017).Google Scholar
Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 573.110, 573.112 (West 2018).Google Scholar
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.780 (West 2015).Google Scholar
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 644:9-a (West 2016).Google Scholar
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:14-9 (West 2015).Google Scholar
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-37A-1 (West 2015).Google Scholar
N.Y.C. Int. No. 1267 (enacted December 12, 2017).Google Scholar
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-190.5A (2015).Google Scholar
N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 12.1-17-07.2 (Supp. 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 1040.13b (2016).Google Scholar
Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 163.472(1)(a) (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 3131 (2015).Google Scholar
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (Am. Law Inst. 1965).Google Scholar
Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D-E (Am. Law Inst. 1977).Google Scholar
R.I. Gen. Laws ch. 11-64-3 (2018).Google Scholar
S.D. Codified Laws § 22-21-4 (West 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17 (West 2016).Google Scholar
Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.16 (West Supp. 2016).Google Scholar
Utah Code Ann. § 76-5b-203 (West 2016).Google Scholar
Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 13, § 2606 (West Supp. 2015).Google Scholar
Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-386.2 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.86.010 (West 2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
W. Va. Code Ann. § 61-8-28a (West 2016).Google Scholar
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 942.09 (2013–2014).Google Scholar