Non-Consensual Dissemination of Intimate Images in Illinois: Complete Legal Guide (2025)

Comprehensive Legal Analysis: Non-Consensual Dissemination of Intimate Images in Illinois Executive Summary The non-consensual dissemination of intimate images (NCDII), frequently referred to as "revenge porn," represents a modern form of sexual abuse that inflicts profound psychological, reputational, and economic damage upon victims. Illinois has emerged as a jurisdiction with a robust, multi-layered legal framework designed to address this conduct through criminal, civil, and administrative channels. The state's approach recognizes NCDII not merely as a privacy tort or a collateral issue in domestic relations, but as a severe criminal offense and a specific cause of action warranting substantial civil damages. This report provides an exhaustive analysis of the legal remedies available in Illinois for victims of NCDII, current as of late 2025. It integrates a detailed examination of the Illinois Criminal Code (720 ILCS 5/11-23.5), the Civil Remedies for Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images Act (740 ILCS 190/), and the Illinois Domestic Violence Act (750 ILCS 60/). Furthermore, it analyzes the intersection of these state laws with the newly enacted federal "TAKE IT DOWN Act" of 2025, which has fundamentally altered the liability landscape for online platforms. The analysis delves into complex procedural strategies, including the use of Supreme Court Rule 224 petitions to unmask anonymous perpetrators, the forensic preservation of digital evidence through cryptographic hashing, and the strategic deployment of Orders of Protection in divorce and custody disputes involving "sextortion." By synthesizing appellate jurisprudenceincluding landmark cases such asPeople v. AustinandPeople v. Devinewith practical litigation strategies, this report serves as a definitive guide for legal practitioners navigating the evolving ecosystem of image-based sexual abuse litigation. Part I: The Criminal Prosecution of NCDII in Illinois The criminalization of NCDII in Illinois under 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 marks a legislative acknowledgment that existing harassment or obscenity laws were insufficient to address the unique harms of digital sexual violations. The statute was crafted to penalize the specific act of betraying privacy expectations regarding intimate imagery, regardless of whether the images were originally created with consent.

1.1 Statutory Elements of 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5

To secure a conviction for Non-Consensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images, the State must prove specific elements beyond a reasonable doubt. A granular understanding of these elements is essential for both prosecution and defense.

1.1.1 The Act of Intentional Dissemination

The statute defines the actus reus as the intentional dissemination of an image of another person. "Disseminate" is broadly defined to include posting, distributing, or publishing images toanother person.Crucially, the law does not require mass distribution or public broadcasting. Illinois courts have affirmed that sending a private image to a single third party constitutes dissemination sufficient to trigger felony liability. This definition was rigorously tested in the recent Illinois Supreme Court case ofPeople v. Devine(2023). InDevine, the defendant accessed the victims locked phone without permission and sent intimate images from her device to his own. The defense argued that this did not constitute "dissemination" because the defendant did not make the images public. The Supreme Court rejected this narrow interpretation, holding that the unauthorized transfer of the images from the victim to the defendantwho was not authorized to possess themconstituted dissemination. The Court reasoned that the statute protects the victim's right to control who possesses their intimate imagery. Thus, dissemination occurs the moment the image is transferred toanyoneunauthorized, even if that person is the defendant themselves extracting the data.

1.1.2 The Requirement of Identifiability

A critical and often litigated element is that the victim must be "identifiable" from the image itself or from information displayed in connection with the image.This requirement serves to distinguish NCDII from the distribution of generic pornography where the subject is unknown. Identifiability can be established in several ways:

Facial Features:The most direct method is if the victim's face is clearly visible.

Distinctive Markings:Tattoos, birthmarks, or unique physical features can establish identity.

Contextual Information:The statute explicitly includes scenarios where the image is accompanied by personal identifying information (PII), such as a name, address, phone number, or social media handle.

However, the evidentiary bar for identifiability is high. InPeople v. Devine, despite ruling that dissemination occurred, the Illinois Supreme Court ultimately reversed the conviction on the grounds that the victim was not legally "identifiable." The images in question were close-up photographs of female genitalia with no face, tattoos, or distinctive background visible. Although the victim identified herself based on the specific shade of nail polish visible in the frame, the Court held that this subjective recognition was insufficient for a criminal conviction absent objective identifiers that would allow a third party to recognize the victim.This creates a significant defense strategy in cases involving cropped or close-up images lacking metadata or context.

1.1.3 Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The State must prove the defendant obtained the image "under circumstances in which a reasonable person would know or understand that the image was to remain private".This element contextualizes the image within the relationship. Images taken in private settings (bedrooms, bathrooms) or shared within the confines of a romantic relationship carry a presumptive expectation of privacy. The statute applies even if the victim voluntarily sent the image to the defendant. The privacy expectation is not waived by the initial transmission; rather, the expectation limits the image's existence to the recipient's device. A reasonable person understands that a nude photo sent by a partner is intended for their eyes only, not for redistribution.

1.1.4 Absence of Consent to Disseminate

The crux of the offense is the lack of consent to thedissemination. It is not a defense that the victim consented to the creation of the image or even provided the image to the defendant.This bifurcated understanding of consentseparating creation from distributionis central to Illinois law. The Illinois Supreme Court addressed this "consent paradox" inPeople v. Austin(2019). The Court clarified that when a person shares an intimate image with a partner, that partner becomes a "second party" to a confidential communication, not a "third party" free to publish it. The Court rejected the notion that sharing an image relinquishes all privacy rights, affirming that the victim retains the right to control further distribution.

1.2 Penalties and Sentencing

The classification of NCDII reflects the legislature's intent to treat it as a serious felony rather than a misdemeanor harassment offense.

Class 4 Felony:The standard offense is a Class 4 felony. Penalties include:

Imprisonment for 1 to 3 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections.

Fines up to $25,000.

Mandatory restitution to the victim.

Extended Terms and Aggravating Factors:The offense can be elevated to a Class 3 felony (2-5 years) if committed for profit, if the victim is a minor (though 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 often defers to child pornography statutes in such cases), or if the offender has prior convictions.

Sex Offender Registration:One of the most severe collateral consequences is the potential requirement to register as a sex offender. While not automatic in every case, judicial discretion allows for this requirement depending on the nature of the dissemination and the age of the victim. This registration carries lifelong stigma and significant restrictions on residency and employment.

1.3 Constitutional Challenges: The First Amendment Defense

The constitutionality of the NCDII statute has been challenged on the grounds that it restricts free speech. The seminal case settling this issue in Illinois isPeople v. Austin. InAustin, the defendant discovered illicit text messages and nude photos of another woman on her fiancs device. She printed these images and mailed them to the fiancs family to expose the affair. The trial court initially dismissed the charges, citing First Amendment protection. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reinstating the charges. The Court applied intermediate scrutiny, holding that the statute is content-neutral because it regulates themannerof dissemination (non-consensual release of private data) rather than the expressive content of the image itself. The Court found that the state has a substantial interest in protecting individual privacy and preventing the unique, devastating harm of "revenge porn," which outweighs the incidental burden on speech. The Court explicitly stated that non-consensual intimate imagery does not constitute a matter of public concern, even when used to "reveal the truth" about a relationship.

1.4 Statute of Limitations for Criminal Charges

The statute of limitations for prosecuting NCDII in Illinois is governed by the general felony limitations period.

Three-Year Rule:For a Class 4 felony, the prosecution must typically commence within three years of the offense.

Commencement of the Clock:The limitation period generally begins when the dissemination occurs. However, complex questions arise regarding continuous publication (e.g., an image left on a website). While the initial act of posting starts the clock, subsequent re-postings or "bumps" of the content may trigger new limitation periods.

DNA and Minor Exceptions:If the NCDII is part of a broader sexual assault or involves a minor, the statute of limitations may be extended significantly or eliminated entirely.

Part II: Civil Litigation Strategy and Remedies While criminal law serves to punish the offender, it often leaves the victim without financial redress for the destruction of their career, reputation, and mental health. To bridge this gap, the Illinois General Assembly enacted theCivil Remedies for Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images Act (740 ILCS 190/). This statute creates a specific cause of action that is distinct from common law privacy torts.

2.1 Elements of the Civil Cause of Action

To succeed in a civil claim under 740 ILCS 190/, a plaintiff must prove the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:

1. Identifiability:The plaintiff is identifiable in the image or through accompanying information.

2. Private Nature:The image depicts sexual activity or intimate body parts and was obtained under circumstances creating a reasonable expectation of privacy.

3. Lack of Consent:The defendant disseminated the image without the plaintiff's consent.

4. Harm:The plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the dissemination.

2.1.1 Defining "Harm"

The statutory definition of harm is notably broad. It includes "physical harm, economic harm, or emotional distress whether or not accompanied by physical or economic harm".This is a critical strategic advantage for plaintiffs. Unlike common law Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED), which often requires severe distress manifested by physical symptoms, the NCDII statute recognizes that the invasion of privacy itself causes inherent emotional injury sufficient for standing.

2.2 Recoverable Damages

The Act provides a comprehensive damages regime designed to be both compensatory and punitive.

2.2.1 Economic and Non-Economic Damages

Plaintiffs are entitled to recover "actual damages," which encompasses:

Economic Loss:Lost wages, loss of employment, or diminished earning capacity due to reputational damage.

Remediation Costs:Expenses incurred for online reputation management services to scrub the images from search indices.

Medical Expenses:Costs for therapy and psychiatric care treating the trauma of the violation.

Pain and Suffering:Compensation for humiliation, shame, anxiety, and loss of dignity.

2.2.2 Statutory Damages

A powerful feature of the Act is the provision for statutory damagesnot to exceed $10,000 per violationagainst each defendant.This provision is vital for victims who may struggle to quantify their economic loss or proving the specific monetary value of their emotional distress. The court determines the exact amount based on aggravating factors, such as the breadth of the distribution (e.g., sending to an employer vs. a friend) and the malicious intent of the defendant.

2.2.3 Punitive Damages

Given the intentional malice inherent in NCDII, punitive damages are frequently awarded. A recent illustrative case isJane Doe v. Andrew Fritch(2024). InFritch, the defendant posted a video of the plaintiff performing oral sex on a pornography site after she requested he stop contacting her. The trial court awardedand the appellate court affirmed$150,000 in punitive damages, in addition to $150,000 for emotional distress and $4,300 in economic damages. This case sets a significant precedent, signaling that Illinois courts view NCDII as egregious conduct warranting six-figure punitive awards to deter future offenses.

2.2.4 Disgorgement of Profits

If the defendant monetized the content (e.g., through subscription sites or ad revenue), the plaintiff is entitled to an amount equal to any monetary gain made from the dissemination.

2.2.5 Attorney's Fees

The Act includes a fee-shifting provision allowing a prevailing plaintiff to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs.This is crucial for access to justice, as it incentivizes attorneys to represent victims who might otherwise lack the funds for prolonged litigation.

2.3 Injunctive Relief and Emergency TROs

Financial compensation does not remove the content. The Act explicitly authorizes courts to issue equitable relief, including:

Temporary Restraining Orders (TROs):Plaintiffs can seek emergency ex parte TROs at the filing of the complaint to immediately prohibit the defendant from further dissemination.

Permanent Injunctions:Courts can order the defendant to remove all existing posts, destroy all copies of the images in their possession, and refrain from any future dissemination.

Takedown Authority:A court order finding the content illegal under 740 ILCS 190/ is a powerful tool when dealing with third-party web hosts. While Section 230 (discussed in Part IV) complicates platform liability, many platforms will honor a specific court order declaring the content to be non-consensual and illegal.

2.4 Civil Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for filing a civil NCDII claim istwo years.

The Discovery Rule:Crucially, the limitations period does not begin until the date the dissemination wasdiscoveredor should have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. This protects victims who may remain unaware of the online posting for years.

Threats:For causes of action based on athreatto disseminate, the limitation is two years from the date of the threat.

2.5 Pseudonymous Litigation (Jane Doe)

Recognizing the paradox of requiring a privacy victim to litigate publicly, 740 ILCS 190/20 allows plaintiffs to proceed using a pseudonym (e.g., "Jane Doe") to protect their identity. The court may also order the redaction of identifying characteristics from public filings.This procedural safeguard is essential for mitigating the "Streisand Effect," where the litigation itself draws more attention to the sensitive material. Part III: Intersection with Family Law and Domestic Violence NCDII is rarely an isolated event; it often functions as a tool of coercive control within abusive relationships. Illinois family law provides immediate remedies intersecting with NCDII.

3.1 NCDII as Domestic Violence under 750 ILCS 60/

The Illinois Domestic Violence Act (IDVA) defines "abuse" to include "harassment," "intimidation," and "interference with personal liberty".

Harassment Defined:Harassment is knowing conduct that causes emotional distress. The non-consensual dissemination of intimate images is widely recognized by Illinois courts as a quintessential form of harassment that creates substantial emotional distress.

Electronic Abuse:While the IDVA predates the smartphone era, the definition of harassment includes "repeatedly telephoning" or contacting the petitioner. Courts have adapted this to include digital harassment. A pattern of posting intimate images or threatening to do so constitutes "abuse" sufficient to grant an Order of Protection (OP).

3.2 Obtaining Orders of Protection (OP)

Victims can seek anEmergency Order of Protection (EOP), which can be grantedex parte(without the abuser present) if there is an immediate threat.

Specific Remedies:An OP can specifically prohibit the respondent from "disseminating" or "threatening to disseminate" any private images. It acts as an immediate injunction backed by the power of arrest. Violation of an OP is a criminal offense (Class A Misdemeanor or Class 4 Felony).

Possession of Property:The OP can grant the petitioner exclusive possession of personal property, such as computers, hard drives, or accounts where the images are stored, effectively removing the means of dissemination from the abuser.

3.3 Sextortion in Divorce Proceedings

In divorce cases, NCDII is often weaponized as "sextortion"using the threat of releasing images to gain leverage in financial settlements or custody negotiations.

Legal Consequence:Such conduct serves as evidence of "extreme mental cruelty" (though Illinois is a no-fault state, this impacts conduct-based analyses). More importantly, using NCDII threats for financial gain constitutes the crime ofIntimidationorTheft by Extortion, which can be raised in the divorce proceedings to destroy the credibility of the perpetrating spouse.

3.4 Custody and Parental Fitness

The dissemination of intimate images of a co-parent is highly relevant to child custody (allocation of parental responsibilities) determinations.

Best Interests of the Child:Courts must consider the "mental and physical health of all individuals involved" and the "willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing relationship between the other parent and the child".

Moral Character:While Illinois courts generally do not judge parental morality unless it affects the child, NCDII is viewed as a direct attack on the other parent's well-being. It demonstrates poor judgment, impulsivity, and a willingness to harm the child's mother/father, which speaks directly to parental fitness. Furthermore, the public nature of the internet means the child could eventually discover the images, causing direct harm to the child. Therefore, evidence of NCDII can be a decisive factor in restricting the perpetrator's parenting time or decision-making authority.

Part IV: Federal Remedies and Platform Liability The internet respects no state borders. Federal law provides critical tools for addressing interstate dissemination and holding platforms accountable.

4.1 The TAKE IT DOWN Act of 2025

Enacted in May 2025, theTAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12)represents the most significant federal intervention in NCDII to date.

Federal Criminalization:The Act explicitly criminalizes the knowing publication of non-consensual intimate visual depictions in interstate commerce. This includes both authentic images and "digital forgeries" (deepfakes). This closes a significant loophole where federal prosecutors previously had to rely on tangentially related statutes like cyberstalking.

Mandatory Notice-and-Removal:The Act imposes a strict liability framework on "covered platforms" (websites and apps that host user-generated content). Upon receiving a valid notice from a victim, the platform must remove the content within48 hours. Failure to do so exposes the platform to enforcement actions by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and potential civil liability.

Deepfakes:The Act specifically addresses AI-generated sexual imagery, ensuring that victims of synthetic NCDII have the same recourse as victims of authentic image abuse.

4.2 Federal Cyberstalking (18 U.S.C. 2261A)

This statute prohibits the use of any interactive computer service to engage in a course of conduct that causes substantial emotional distress to a specific person.

Application:Federal prosecutors use this statute for NCDII cases involving repeated harassment or where the perpetrator travels across state lines. The penalties are severe, with sentences up to 5 years, or significantly more if the conduct results in death (e.g., suicide) or serious bodily injury.

4.3 Section 230 and Platform Immunity

Historically,Section 230 of the Communications Decency Actprovided broad immunity to online platforms, shielding them from liability for content posted by third-party users.This made it nearly impossible to sue websites like Facebook or Reddit for hosting NCDII.

The 2025 Shift:The TAKE IT DOWN Act creates a statutory obligation that pierces Section 230 immunity regarding the specific duty to remove reported NCDII. While platforms may retain immunity for theinitialuser post, they are now liable for failing to act after notice.

FOSTA-SESTA:This follows the precedent of FOSTA-SESTA, which carved out an exception to Section 230 for sex trafficking. NCDII is now effectively the second major exception to the "magna carta of the internet".

4.4 Copyright Law and DMCA Takedowns

A highly effective tool for removing images is theDigital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

Copyright Ownership:If the victim took the photo themselves ("selfie"), they own the copyrightnot the person depicted, but the person who pressed the shutter. Even if they sent it to an ex-partner, they retain the copyright unless they transferred it in writing.

Takedown Procedure:The victim can file a DMCA Takedown Notice with the web host, ISP, and search engines (Google). The host must remove the infringing material to maintain their "safe harbor" status. This is often faster than a court order because it is an administrative process handled by the platform's legal department.

Part V: Investigation, Discovery, and Evidence Preservation Successful litigation requires identifying the perpetrator and preserving volatile digital evidence.

5.1 Unmasking Anonymous Posters: Supreme Court Rule 224

Perpetrators often hide behind pseudonyms. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 224 allows for "Discovery Before Suit" to identify responsible persons.

5.1.1 The Rule 224 Petition Process

A victim files a verified petition against the third-party entity holding the data (e.g., Google, Comcast, or a forum host). The petition must state the reason discovery is necessary (to identify a defendant for a lawsuit) and the nature of the discovery (IP addresses, account logs).

5.1.2 TheStoneandMaxonStandards

To prevent abuse of this process and protect anonymous speech, Illinois courts have established strict standards. InStone v. Paddock PublicationsandMaxon v. Ottawa Publishing, the courts held that a Rule 224 petitioner must establish aprima facie caseof the underlying tort (defamation or NCDII) against the anonymous John Doe. The petition must allege facts sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Mere suspicion or "fishing expeditions" are not permitted. Procedure:

1. Stage 1:File Rule 224 petition against the platform (e.g., Facebook) to get the IP address.

2. Stage 2:Once the IP is obtained, file a second Rule 224 or subpoena against the ISP (e.g., Comcast) to link the IP to a physical subscriber address. 3. Notification:The ISP typically notifies the subscriber, giving them a chance to file a motion to quash.

5.2 Forensic Evidence Preservation

Digital evidence is fragile. Deletion by the perpetrator or the platform can destroy the case.

The "Golden Hour":Immediate preservation is critical. Victims must act before the 48-hour takedown window of the TAKE IT DOWN Act potentially erases the evidence needed for a civil suit.

Beyond Screenshots:Screenshots are often inadmissible or insufficient because they can be easily forged. They lack metadata.

Hashing:The gold standard for preservation iscryptographic hashing(MD5 or SHA-256). This creates a unique digital fingerprint of the image file. If a single pixel changes, the hash changes. Hashing allows victims to prove the file on the defendant's computer is identical to the one on the victim's phone.

Metadata (EXIF):EXIF data embedded in the image file can prove the date, time, and GPS location of the photo's creation. This can refute defenses regarding when or where the image was taken.

StopNCII.org:This tool allows victims to generate a hash of their intimate images on their own device. The hash (not the image) is shared with participating platforms to block the upload of matching files. This is a preventative measure that also generates a record of the content.

Part VI: Victim Advocacy and Compensation

6.1 Illinois Crime Victims Compensation Act

Victims of NCDII are statutorily eligible for financial assistance under theIllinois Crime Victims Compensation Act.

Eligibility:The Act explicitly lists "Non-consensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images" as a compensable violent crime.

Benefits:Eligible victims can receive up to$45,000(for crimes occurring after August 7, 2022) to cover expenses such as:

Mental health counseling and therapy.

Lost wages (up to $1,250/month) due to inability to work.

Costs associated with relocation if safety is threatened.

Expenses for obtaining an Order of Protection.

Procedural Requirements:The victim must file a police report within 7 days (for sexual offenses) and cooperate with law enforcement and the prosecution. The application for compensation must generally be filed within 2 years of the crime.

6.2 Cyber Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI)

The CCRI is the primary advocacy organization for NCDII victims. They provide crisis helplines, legal directories, and comprehensive guides for issuing takedown notices. Their resources are essential for navigating the practical, non-legal aspects of recovery, such as reputation management and psychological support. Conclusion The legal landscape in Illinois provides a formidable array of weapons to combat the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. The synthesis of strict criminal penalties under 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5, substantial civil liability under 740 ILCS 190/, and the immediate protective power of the Illinois Domestic Violence Act creates a comprehensive shield for victims. With the 2025 enactment of the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, the net has tightened further, forcing online platforms to become active participants in the removal of infringing content. For the legal practitioner, success requires a coordinated strategy: utilizing the "Golden Hour" to preserve forensic evidence through hashing; securing immediate safety through Orders of Protection; initiating concurrent criminal and civil proceedings to maximize leverage; and employing Rule 224 to pierce the veil of online anonymity. As evidenced by the rulings inAustin,Devine, andFritch, Illinois courts are committed to enforcing these laws rigorously, prioritizing the privacy and dignity of victims in the digital age.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of NCDII Legal Remedies in Illinois

Remedy Framework Statute / Authority Key Benefit Statute of Limitations Burden of Proof Criminal Prosecution

720 Ilcs 5/11-23.5

Incarceration (1-3 yrs), Sex Offender Registration

3 Years (Class 4 Felony)

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Civil Litigation

740 Ilcs 190/

Statutory Damages ($10k), Punitive Damages, Injunctions

2 Years (from Discovery)

Preponderance of Evidence Order of Protection

750 Ilcs 60/

Immediate No-Contact, Possession of Devices Immediate (Emergency) Preponderance of Evidence Federal Action TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025) Mandatory 48-hr Takedown, Federal Criminal Charges Varies (Federal) N/A (Regulatory Compliance) Identity Discovery Sup. Ct. Rule 224 Unmasking Anonymous Posters (IP Address) Pre-Suit Filing Prima Facie Case of Tort Victim Compensation

740 Ilcs 45/

Financial Reimbursement (Counseling/Wages)

2 Years to File Claim

Administrative Determination

edwardjohnsonlaw.com How Illinois Law Handles Revenge Porn - Edward Johnson and Associates P.C. Opens in a new window

law.justia.com People v. Devine - Supreme Court of Illinois Decisions - Justia Law Opens in a new window

caselaw.findlaw.com PEOPLE v. DEVINE (2023) - FindLaw Caselaw Opens in a new window

criminaldefenselawyer.com Illinois Revenge Porn Crime Laws and Penalties - Criminal Defense Lawyer Opens in a new window

dolciandweiland.com Non-Consensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images | Dolci & Weiland Opens in a new window

guilamolaw.com Non-consensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images 720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 - Law Office of Clyde Guilamo, LLC Opens in a new window

minclaw.com Illinois Revenge Porn Laws: Charges, Penalties & Defenses Explained Opens in a new window

globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu People v. Austin - Global Freedom of Expression Opens in a new window

shawlocal.com Illinois Supreme Court reverses ruling in 'revenge porn' case - Shaw Local Opens in a new window

napervilledui.com Can You Be Charged for Sharing Explicit Images Without Consent? - Naperville DUI Lawyer Opens in a new window

ilga.gov

Sb1716 104Th General Assembly

Opens in a new window

azharillc.com What Constitutes Revenge Porn Under Illinois Law? - Azhari LLC Opens in a new window

jolt.law.harvard.edu People v. Austin: Is Revenge Porn Constitutionally Protected Speech? Opens in a new window

criminaldefenselawyer.com What Are Illinois' Criminal Statute of Limitations? Opens in a new window

borsberrylaw.com Illinois Statute of Limitations | Criminal Law Peoria IL Opens in a new window

ilga.gov CIVIL LIABILITIES (740 ILCS 190/) Civil Remedies for Nonconsensual Dissemination of Private Sexual Images Act. - Illinois General Assembly - - Opens in a new window

legiscan.com Illinois-2023-HB2123-Chaptered - LegiScan Opens in a new window

law.justia.com Doe v. Fritch :: 2024 :: Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District ... Opens in a new window

caselaw.findlaw.com JANE DOE v. ANDREW FRITCH (2024) - FindLaw Caselaw Opens in a new window

ilga.gov

750 ILCS 60/ Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986.

Opens in a new window

hirschlawgroup.com DeKalb County Order of Protection Lawyer: Professional Legal Support for Your Safety - Hirsch Law Group Opens in a new window

illinoislegalaid.org Remedies - Illinois Legal Aid Online Opens in a new window

helpingsurvivors.org What Is Sexual Extortion? | Helping Survivors of Sexual Assault and Abuse Opens in a new window

dolciandweiland.com Child Custody Lawyer in Illinois - Dolci & Weiland Opens in a new window

everycrsreport.com The TAKE IT DOWN Act: A Federal Law Prohibiting the Nonconsensual Publication of Intimate Images - EveryCRSReport.com Opens in a new window

en.wikipedia.org TAKE IT DOWN Act - Wikipedia Opens in a new window

bairdholm.com The New TAKE IT DOWN Act - Baird Holm LLP Opens in a new window

ftc.gov Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act ("TAKE IT DOWN Act") | Federal Trade Commission Opens in a new window

onlineharassmentfieldmanual.pen.org Federal Laws & Online Harassment Opens in a new window

nyccriminalattorneys.com Federal Revenge Porn Charges Under the Take It Down Act: Non-Consensual Pornography, Mandatory Sentences, FBI Investigations & Forfeiture Risks Opens in a new window

en.wikipedia.org Section 230 - Wikipedia Opens in a new window

proskauer.com A Final Bow for Section 230? Latest Plea for Reform Calls for Sunset of Immunity Law Opens in a new window

veridianlegal.com New York Revenge Porn Lawyers - Veridian Legal Opens in a new window

womenslaw.org Abuse Using Technology: When images are threatened to be posted online or are actually posted | WomensLaw.org Opens in a new window

kfkllaw.com Using Supreme Court Rule 224 to ascertain the identity of anonymous online posters | Illinois State Bar Associ... Page 1 of 3 - Lawyers Opens in a new window

ilcourtsaudio.blob.core.windows.net Rule 224. Discovery Before Suit to Identify Responsible Persons ... Opens in a new window

isba.org Protecting anonymous online speakers: Stone v Paddock Publications | Illinois State Bar Association Opens in a new window

illinoiscourts.gov No. 3-08-0805, Maxon v. OIttawa Publishing Co., filed 6/1/10 - Illinois Courts Opens in a new window

minclaw.com How to Document Evidence of Defamation | Minc Law Opens in a new window

esafety.gov.au What to do if you shared someone's intimate image or video - eSafety Commissioner Opens in a new window

chicago.gov Crime Victims Compensation: Frequently Asked Questions Opens in a new window

paladincac.org Crime Victim Compensation: Frequently Asked Questions by Opens in a new window

willcountysao.com Victim & Witness Services - Will County State's Attorney Opens in a new window

minclaw.com Revenge Porn Laws: State-By-State Guide | Minc Law Firm Opens in a new window

Frequently Asked Questions

What is non-consensual dissemination of intimate images?

Comprehensive Legal Analysis: Non-Consensual Dissemination of Intimate Images in Illinois Executive Summary The non-consensual dissemination of intimate images (NCDII), frequently referred to as...

How does Illinois law address non-consensual dissemination of intimate images?

Illinois family law under 750 ILCS 5 governs non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. Courts consider statutory factors, case law precedent, and the best interests standard when making determinations. Each case is fact-specific and requires individualized legal analysis.

Do I need an attorney for non-consensual dissemination of intimate images?

While Illinois law allows self-representation, non-consensual dissemination of intimate images involves complex legal, financial, and procedural issues. An experienced Illinois family law attorney ensures your rights are protected, provides strategic guidance, and navigates court procedures effectively.

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.