## Facts

- Rebekah Van Buren discovered that her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend had sent nude photos to his Facebook account while Van Buren and the boyfriend were dating.
- The boyfriend told Van Buren she was not authorized to access his Facebook account.
- Van Buren nonetheless accessed the account, copied the nude photos, and associated them with the ex-girlfriend’s name.
- Van Buren published the photos on a public Facebook page and tagged the ex-girlfriend, making the images visible to others.
- The State charged Van Buren under Vermont’s revenge-porn statute, which prohibited knowingly disclosing “a visual image of an identifiable person who was nude or was engaged in sexual conduct,” without consent, with intent to “harm, harass, intimidate, threaten or coerce,” where the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm.
- Van Buren admitted she posted the pictures to get revenge on the ex-girlfriend and “teach her a lesson.”
- Van Buren moved to dismiss the charge, arguing the statute violated the First Amendment because it was overbroad and not tailored to a compelling or important government interest.

## Issues

1. Does Vermont’s revenge-porn statute violate the First Amendment because it is an overbroad restriction on protected speech and not sufficiently tailored to the government’s asserted interest in preventing harm from nonconsensual disclosure of nude images?

## Decision

- The trial court granted Van Buren’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held Vermont’s revenge-porn statute unconstitutional under the First Amendment as written, concluding its reach into protected expression was too broad in relation to its legitimate applications.
- Because the statute was held unconstitutional, the criminal charge against Van Buren was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- The First Amendment generally protects publication of images and information, including material that is offensive or causes distress, unless the speech falls within a recognized exception.
- A law that restricts speech based on what an image depicts (such as nudity or sexual conduct) implicates heightened First Amendment scrutiny.
- Under the overbreadth doctrine, a statute may be invalidated on its face if it prohibits a substantial amount of protected speech relative to the law’s legitimate sweep.
- Even when the government asserts a significant interest (such as preventing harassment and privacy harms from nonconsensual intimate-image disclosures), the regulation must be drawn narrowly enough that it does not criminalize a wide range of protected communications.

## Conclusion

In *State v. Van Buren*, the court dismissed a criminal charge brought under Vermont’s revenge-porn statute after concluding the law, as drafted, impermissibly restricted protected speech. Although the State identified serious harms caused by the nonconsensual posting of intimate images, the court determined the statute swept too broadly and therefore violated the First Amendment, requiring dismissal of the prosecution.


State v. Van Buren, Docket No. 1144-12-15Bncr. (2016)