By now, virtually everyone has heard about the celebrity nudes scandal, in which dozens of female celebrities had intimate photos stored in the cloud leaked to the public.
Laura Poitras / Praxis Films [CC BY 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
While most of the media has refrained from re-posting these pictures – potentially in consideration of public opinion more than the ladies in question’s privacy – there have been notable exceptions. Of course, this isn’t the first time this has happened. Hulk Hogan has had his own troubles removing a sex tape from the Internet, as have countless other celebrities.
The problem, as it turns out, is that while virtually all of America agrees that re-posting this kind of content is morally reprehensible, it isn’t technically illegal. That might seem shocking, but barring the practice falls broadly under the category of “prior restraint,” which is generally considered to be unconstitutional. Let’s take a look at what this law means and why it is structured the way it is.
Prior restraint
First amendment law defines a prior restraint as any kind of government action that outlaws speech or other expression before it is made. The two commonly cited forms of prior restraint include regulations that require a permit before certain expression is allowed and judicial injunctions prohibiting certain speech. Both are usually considered to be unconstitutional.
A caveat important to the current context is that this rule applies even in cases in which the content is known to have been illegally obtained. In this case, most people would agree that entertainment news sources and the like should be barred from re-posting the stolen nudes, especially because of how they were obtained. In this light, someone might be forgiven for thinking that this is an example of bad law, but let’s take a look at the same law in a different context.
Modern whistle-blowing
While not everyone agrees with the actions of Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden in publishing state secrets, the vast majority of Americans agree that we should have access to the information that they published. In both cases, the person in question broke the law to obtain and smuggle out information that was eventually published. Manning is currently serving a 35-year jail sentence for her actions and Snowden is taking advantage of asylum in Russia.
Constitutional rulings against prior restraint do nothing to bar the government from pursuing Manning or Snowden, but they are the reason that the government could not stop Wikileaks and The Guardian from publishing the information provided by Manning and Snowden, respectively. Despite the fact that this information was obtained illegally, to stop these news organizations from publishing this information would constitute a prior restraint.
What legal recourse is open to the actors whose intimate photos were stolen? Unfortunately, not much. It might be possible to copyright the photos, but this poses its own difficulties and ultimately would likely prove futile. Lawmakers could search for a way to specifically outlaw the re-posting of this kind of material, but it would be difficult to do so in a way that doesn’t dampen free speech.
Sadly, the only realistic option is for celebrities and concerned members of the public to exert pressure on organizations not to publish materials of this nature.
As a New York City entertainment attorney, I’ve come across issues in regards to celebrities and their privacy. My previous post Do Celebrities Have a Right To Privacy? covers this very issue.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden & Celebrity Nudes
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
By now, virtually everyone has heard about the celebrity nudes scandal, in which dozens of female celebrities had intimate photos stored in the cloud leaked to the public.
Laura Poitras / Praxis Films [CC BY 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
While most of the media has refrained from re-posting these pictures – potentially in consideration of public opinion more than the ladies in question’s privacy – there have been notable exceptions. Of course, this isn’t the first time this has happened. Hulk Hogan has had his own troubles removing a sex tape from the Internet, as have countless other celebrities.
The problem, as it turns out, is that while virtually all of America agrees that re-posting this kind of content is morally reprehensible, it isn’t technically illegal. That might seem shocking, but barring the practice falls broadly under the category of “prior restraint,” which is generally considered to be unconstitutional. Let’s take a look at what this law means and why it is structured the way it is.
Prior restraint
First amendment law defines a prior restraint as any kind of government action that outlaws speech or other expression before it is made. The two commonly cited forms of prior restraint include regulations that require a permit before certain expression is allowed and judicial injunctions prohibiting certain speech. Both are usually considered to be unconstitutional.
A caveat important to the current context is that this rule applies even in cases in which the content is known to have been illegally obtained. In this case, most people would agree that entertainment news sources and the like should be barred from re-posting the stolen nudes, especially because of how they were obtained. In this light, someone might be forgiven for thinking that this is an example of bad law, but let’s take a look at the same law in a different context.
Modern whistle-blowing
While not everyone agrees with the actions of Chelsea Manning or Edward Snowden in publishing state secrets, the vast majority of Americans agree that we should have access to the information that they published. In both cases, the person in question broke the law to obtain and smuggle out information that was eventually published. Manning is currently serving a 35-year jail sentence for her actions and Snowden is taking advantage of asylum in Russia.
Constitutional rulings against prior restraint do nothing to bar the government from pursuing Manning or Snowden, but they are the reason that the government could not stop Wikileaks and The Guardian from publishing the information provided by Manning and Snowden, respectively. Despite the fact that this information was obtained illegally, to stop these news organizations from publishing this information would constitute a prior restraint.
What legal recourse is open to the actors whose intimate photos were stolen? Unfortunately, not much. It might be possible to copyright the photos, but this poses its own difficulties and ultimately would likely prove futile. Lawmakers could search for a way to specifically outlaw the re-posting of this kind of material, but it would be difficult to do so in a way that doesn’t dampen free speech.
Sadly, the only realistic option is for celebrities and concerned members of the public to exert pressure on organizations not to publish materials of this nature.
As a New York City entertainment attorney, I’ve come across issues in regards to celebrities and their privacy. My previous post Do Celebrities Have a Right To Privacy? covers this very issue.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
