Following up the Revenge Porn post, civil remedies that go hand-in-hand with revenge porn attacks include Invasion of Privacy claims and Emotional Damage claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress or “IIED”). Nationwide, there are four kinds of claims for invasion of privacy but North Carolina recognizes two and has explicitly ruled out two others. [I hope the two exclusionary holdings will be challenged given the advances in technology that have taken place since the mid to late 1980s when those cases were decided.]
North Carolina recognizes invasion of privacy claims for appropriation of one's picture or name and invasion of a person’s private affairs or seclusion. (See Hall v. Post, 323 N.C.259 (1988).) Although somewhat oversimplifying the required elements, a person must show that there was an unauthorized use or prying or intruding in the private affairs or seclusion of a person that would be objectionable to a reasonable person. For example, posting pictures of your spouse exposing her chest at Mardi Gras (gotta earn those beads) would not be an invasion of privacy as the ‘exposure’ was in a public place at a public event. On the other hand, posting pictures of your spouse exposing her chest during a private intimate marital moment would meet the definition. Judging by a NC State Senator’s comment on the senate floor, “I’d rather be shot in the leg than have naked pictures posted of me online,” it is likely that the disclosure of private marital images would be objectionable to a reasonable person.
In addition to privacy claims, a person who has been victimized by another can seek civil damages for emotional damage. This is known as “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” As the name implies, this claim is intentional (not accidental or negligent), and the bad actor must pay money damages for injuries resulting from his or her conduct or actions regardless of whether the bad actor could have foreseen the damage caused. The bad actor’s conduct must be a) extreme and outrageous, and b) intending to cause severe emotional distress, and c) did cause severe emotional distress (actual injury).
Cases where invasion of privacy claims have been involved include “low-tech” Facebook posts of confidential and private information; to Teddy Bear Cams in bedrooms and bathrooms (and not to safeguard children); to “high-tech” drones with GoPro cameras.
North Carolina recognizes invasion of privacy claims for appropriation of one's picture or name and invasion of a person’s private affairs or seclusion. (See Hall v. Post, 323 N.C.259 (1988).) Although somewhat oversimplifying the required elements, a person must show that there was an unauthorized use or prying or intruding in the private affairs or seclusion of a person that would be objectionable to a reasonable person. For example, posting pictures of your spouse exposing her chest at Mardi Gras (gotta earn those beads) would not be an invasion of privacy as the ‘exposure’ was in a public place at a public event. On the other hand, posting pictures of your spouse exposing her chest during a private intimate marital moment would meet the definition. Judging by a NC State Senator’s comment on the senate floor, “I’d rather be shot in the leg than have naked pictures posted of me online,” it is likely that the disclosure of private marital images would be objectionable to a reasonable person.
In addition to privacy claims, a person who has been victimized by another can seek civil damages for emotional damage. This is known as “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” As the name implies, this claim is intentional (not accidental or negligent), and the bad actor must pay money damages for injuries resulting from his or her conduct or actions regardless of whether the bad actor could have foreseen the damage caused. The bad actor’s conduct must be a) extreme and outrageous, and b) intending to cause severe emotional distress, and c) did cause severe emotional distress (actual injury).
Cases where invasion of privacy claims have been involved include “low-tech” Facebook posts of confidential and private information; to Teddy Bear Cams in bedrooms and bathrooms (and not to safeguard children); to “high-tech” drones with GoPro cameras.