Common Defenses Perpetrators Use in Revenge Porn Cases

Defendants Rarely Admit Guilt But Their Defenses Can Be Overcome

When someone is caught posting or sharing intimate images without consent, the odds of them simply admitting fault are slim. Instead, they scramble for defenses. Some are flimsy, some are technical, and some are just attempts to confuse the court. Survivors often feel frustrated hearing these excuses, but the reality is that courts in New York have seen them all before.

These defenses can sound intimidating at first, but most crumble when lawyers shine a light on the facts. At Horn Wright, LLP, our sexual abuse attorneys don’t just counter defenses, we anticipate them. That preparation makes it easier to show judges and juries the truth: that revenge porn is deliberate abuse, not a misunderstanding.

The “Consent” Defense and How to Challenge It

One of the most common defenses is, “They agreed to it.” Defendants argue that because someone consented to being photographed or recorded, they also consented to the later sharing of the images. This is misleading.

New York law is clear. Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 protect a person’s image and likeness. Consent to take a photo is not consent to distribute it. Courts have consistently separated the two. In workplace revenge porn cases, for example, intimate photos may have been exchanged privately between partners. But when one party leaks them to colleagues or posts them online, that’s a separate act , and it violates the law.

Challenging this defense means showing the context. Survivors can testify that consent was limited to private use, not public display. Lawyers often highlight digital evidence, like private messages where boundaries were expressed, to dismantle the “consent” narrative.

Free Speech Arguments in Court

Another tactic is to hide behind the First Amendment. Defendants claim their posts are “protected speech.” On the surface, it sounds persuasive, free speech is a powerful constitutional right. But it has limits.

New York courts have repeatedly held that unlawful dissemination of intimate images under Penal Law § 245.15 is not speech worth protecting. Sharing private images without permission is treated as conduct, not expression. In social media revenge porn cases, courts emphasize that the harm isn’t about suppressing speech, it’s about protecting privacy and preventing exploitation.

Free speech defenses also collapse when judges weigh the balance between constitutional rights and personal privacy. Courts make it clear: the right to free speech doesn’t include the right to weaponize someone else’s body for humiliation.

How to Prove Malicious Intent

Some defendants insist they didn’t mean harm. They argue that posting or sharing images was careless or thoughtless, not malicious. But malicious intent doesn’t have to be spelled out in neon lights. It can be inferred from actions.

Courts look at patterns. Was the content shared after a breakup? Were captions added to mock or humiliate? Did the offender target friends, family, or co-workers by tagging them? All of these suggest intent to cause distress.

In adult website revenge porn cases, malicious intent is even clearer when offenders upload content to platforms known for public consumption. The act itself shows purpose: to humiliate, profit, or both. Lawyers gather this kind of circumstantial evidence to show judges that the harm wasn’t accidental.

New Hampshire Courts Allow Broader Use of Free Speech Defenses Than New York

Not all states treat free speech defenses the same way. New Hampshire courts have historically been more open to hearing these arguments. Some cases there have allowed defendants to frame revenge porn as “expression,” forcing survivors to fight harder to establish privacy violations. The statutes don’t always give the same clarity as New York’s laws.

By contrast, New York has made its stance clear. The unlawful dissemination statute directly criminalizes revenge porn, leaving less room for free speech claims. Civil suits under Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51 also recognize the difference between consent to create images and unauthorized distribution. This stronger framework makes free speech defenses much weaker in New York than in New Hampshire.

For survivors with ties to both states, pursuing cases in New York often means fewer hurdles and stronger protections.

Why Skilled Lawyers Undermine Common Defenses

Defense strategies aren’t just arguments, they’re tactics designed to create doubt. A skilled lawyer doesn’t just answer them one by one. They dismantle the foundation behind them.

When a defendant says, “They consented,” attorneys point to the clear distinction in New York law. When someone pleads “free speech,” lawyers remind courts that harassment and privacy violations aren’t constitutionally protected. And when intent is denied, attorneys gather digital breadcrumbs, timestamps, messages, captions, that reveal the offender’s true purpose.

For survivors of blackmail revenge porn, skilled lawyers also highlight threats that preceded the release of images. Those threats turn intent into something undeniable: deliberate exploitation.

How to Turn Defendant Arguments Into Evidence Against Them

Ironically, some defenses actually strengthen a victim’s case. The “consent” defense, for example, allows survivors to show they trusted the offender with private material. That trust, later broken, underscores the betrayal. Free speech defenses can backfire too, drawing the court’s attention to the fact that the offender admits posting the content.

• Consent arguments. They highlight that images were created in private settings, often proving intimacy was abused.
• Free speech claims. They confirm that content was intentionally shared publicly, helping establish malicious conduct.
• Lack of intent defenses. They open the door for evidence showing targeted humiliation, which strengthens damages claims.

This strategy works especially well in workplace revenge porn cases. When offenders claim they “didn’t mean harm,” evidence showing targeted distribution to colleagues demonstrates exactly the opposite, and often leads to harsher rulings.

Horn Wright, LLP, Knows How to Defeat Common Defenses

Defenses in revenge porn cases are predictable. Survivors shouldn’t have to feel rattled when they hear them. At Horn Wright, LLP, we’ve faced every excuse, from bogus consent claims to free speech arguments, and we’ve beaten them in court.

Our sexual abuse attorneys know how to turn these defenses inside out. We don’t just respond; we use them as opportunities to highlight the betrayal, the intent, and the ongoing harm. Judges and juries see through excuses when the case is built carefully, and that’s what we do.

If you’re ready to work with a nationally recognized firm that knows how to dismantle common defenses, Horn Wright, LLP, will make sure no excuse stands between you and justice.