This is a specialized legislative research report published by the National Diet Library in the "Foreign Legislation" series in August 2025, dealing with legal analysis of US federal law criminalizing certain publication of sexual images.
Legislative Background and Digital Age Challenges
With internet and social media proliferation, "revenge porn" and "non-consensual pornography" - publishing and disseminating sexual images or videos without consent - have become serious social problems. Most victims are women, suffering mental distress, social credit loss, and economic damage from cases including image publication by former partners for revenge, private image leaks through hacking, and creation and dissemination of fake sexual images using AI technology (deepfakes). Previously, this problem was addressed through individual state laws, but given the internet-based nature of crimes crossing state boundaries, recognition grew for unified federal law regulation, leading to this Act's enactment.
Main Legal Provisions and Scope
This federal law stipulates as federal crimes the intentional distribution and publication of sexual content images and videos without victim consent. Specifically, unauthorized publication of sexual images filmed or created in private relationships, distribution of images obtained through hacking or voyeurism, and creation and dissemination of fake sexual images using AI technology (deepfakes) are subject to punishment. Penalties include maximum 5 years imprisonment and maximum $250,000 fine, with heavier punishments for organized and commercial purposes. Civil remedy rights including damage compensation claims are also legally guaranteed for victims.
Constitutional Controversy and Freedom of Expression
During the Act's enactment process, intense debate occurred regarding relationships with the First Amendment (freedom of expression). Critics pointed to possibilities that sexual expression regulation might excessively restrict freedom of expression, expressing concerns about chilling effects on legitimate expression activities including artistic expression, press freedom, and political satire. Supporters argued that victims' privacy rights, personality rights, and safety rights are more fundamental constitutional values, and expression regulation under specific circumstances is constitutionally permissible.
Enforcement Structure and Technology Company Responsibilities
For effective Act enforcement, specialized cybercrime departments have been established in the FBI with strengthened coordination systems with state and local police. Internet platform companies are legally obligated to implement rapid illegal content removal, victim reporting and consultation windows establishment, and reposting prevention technology introduction. Major tech companies including Google, Meta, and Twitter (now X) are advancing AI-powered automatic detection system development and implementation, with industry association-based self-regulation strengthening proceeding in parallel.
International Cooperation and Extraterritorial Application
Responding to digital crime's cross-border nature, this Act permits extraterritorial application under certain conditions, making criminal acts using overseas servers and harm to US citizens by foreigners subject to punishment. International law enforcement cooperation systems are being constructed with the EU's GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), UK's Online Safety Act, and Australia's Image-Based Abuse Crimes Act.
Social Impact and Future Challenges
This Act's enactment draws international attention as a new legal framework for human rights protection in the digital age, with similar legislation being considered in other developed countries. However, challenges remain including technical detection and removal difficulties, international law enforcement cooperation limitations, and responses to new technologies (VR, metaverse, etc.), requiring continuous legal system review and technological response advancement.
The article conducts detailed analysis of how the US sexual image regulation law influences international digital human rights protection standard formation and what insights it provides as a legal approach to contemporary challenges of ensuring balance between freedom of expression and privacy protection.