Tackling Revenge Porn: What the Belgian Legislator can learn from his American Counterpart
JOURNALISTIEK ARTIKEL
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Wraakporno aanpakken: wat België kan leren van zijn Amerikaanse tegenpool
Steeds vaker wordt in de media bericht over scenario’s waarin een misnoegde ex naaktfoto’s van een voormalige partner publiek maakt, meestal door deze te plaatsen op een online platform. Hoewel hierbij meestal verwezen wordt naar de notie ‘wraakporno’, dekt deze term niet de hele lading en wordt eigenlijk een breder gamma aan gedragingen bedoeld. Zo zijn er ook gevallen waar slachtoffer en dader elkaar niet persoonlijk kennen. Denk maar aan een hacker die een computer kraakt en zo privé-foto’s steelt of aan een voyeur die onwetende zwembadbezoekers fotografeert in een kleedhokje. Wat de precieze omstandigheden ook zijn, de grootste gemene deler is telkens het gebrek aan toestemming van de persoon in de naaktfoto om die openbaar te maken. Vandaar dat een begrip als ‘ongewenste openbaarmaking van seksuele beelden’ een meer correcte omschrijving is dan de term ‘wraakporno’.
Hoewel de juiste terminologie dus ruimte laat voor discussie, staat het buiten kijf dat wraakporno een vernietigende impact heeft op zowel het slachtoffer, als de maatschappij in het algemeen. Zeker wanneer wraakporno online wordt verspreid, kunnen foto’s of video’s gemakkelijk, snel en – vooral – anoniem worden gedeeld en gekopieerd. Bovendien worden de publiekgemaakte beelden in bepaalde gevallen aangevuld met persoonlijke informatie over het slachtoffer zelf – zoals zijn of haar naam, telefoonnummer, e-mail, werkplek, adres en seksuele voorkeur – wat dan kan leiden tot anonieme pesterijen en bedreigingen, online en offline. Niet alleen de seksuele integriteit van de slachtoffers wordt zo geschonden. Zij kunnen ook gezichtsverlies lijden in sociale en professionele kring. Sommigen worden zelfs zodanig belaagd dat zij zich uit angst en schaamte volledig gaan afzonderen van hun omgeving en te kampen krijgen met depressie. Uit onderzoek is overigens gebleken dat vooral vrouwen en meisjes het slachtoffer worden van wraakporno. Deze bevinding is relevant omdat dit een groter maatschappelijk probleem blootlegt, m.n. een cultuur van seksisme die in de anonimiteit van het internet ongeremd en (tot nog toe) vaak ongestraft tot uiting komt.
Zodoende rijst de vraag of het Belgische rechtssysteem is opgewassen tegen de ongewenste openbaarmaking van seksuele beelden. Uit een nauwgezette analyse blijkt dat er vandaag geen gepaste strafrechtelijke bepaling bestaat die dit fenomeen voldoende beteugelt, zelfs niet in de Belgische Privacywet. Ofwel valt zo’n gedrag niet binnen het toepassingsgebied van de strafwet, ofwel zijn de voorziene straffen niet evenredig aan de ernst van de feiten. Voldoende strenge straffen zijn nochtans noodzakelijk, niet alleen vanwege de vraag van slachtoffers naar rechtvaardigheid, maar ook om een afschrikkend effect uit te oefenen op potentiële daders. Het ontradend potentieel van een strafrechtelijke sanctie is immers onontbeerlijk gezien het feit dat het buitengewoon moeilijk is om gelekte naaktfoto’s van het internet te halen eenmaal ze online zijn geplaatst.
Bij gebrek aan een strafrechtelijk antwoord op wraakporno werd het Belgische auteursrecht onderzocht als een mogelijke alternatieve piste. In maar liefst 80% van de gevallen draait een ‘wraakporno’-zaak om ‘selfies’ die worden publiek gemaakt. Iemand die een selfie neemt, is zélf de eigenaar van de auteursrechten zodat niemand die selfie mag gebruiken, bewerken of openbaar maken zonder de expliciete toestemming van die persoon. Maar ook hier was het besluit niet anders: de Belgische auteurswet is te mild (en biedt sowieso geen oplossing voor de 20% van de gevallen waar er geen selfies in het spel zijn). Het Belgische rechtsstelsel kampt dus met een aanzienlijke lacune en is op dit moment onvoldoende uitgerust om wraakporno correct te bestraffen. Er is dan ook duidelijk nood aan een wetgevend initiatief.
Hoe zo’n ‘wraakporno-wet’ er concreet moet uitzien en welke definities en straffen er allemaal precies moeten in staan, zijn echter vragen waarop er geen kant-en-klare antwoorden beschikbaar zijn. Aangezien in de Verenigde Staten wel al wetgeving bestaat in dit domein, en er dus een zekere ervaring in het bestraffen ervan werd opgebouwd, werd in de tweede fase van het onderzoek een aantal van deze Amerikaanse juridische instrumenten bestudeerd.
Online wraakporno dook voor de eerste maal op in de VS in 2000. Gaandeweg hebben verschillende Amerikaanse deelstaten de ernst en het schadepotentieel van wraakporno (oftewel ‘revenge porn’) ingezien en hebben ze wetgeving gecreëerd die specifiek dit soort gedrag aanpakt. Op dit moment hebben vijfentwintig van de vijftig Amerikaanse staten een anti-wraakporno wet in hun arsenaal. Dit betekent dat wraakporno niet strafbaar is in de overige deelstaten, waardoor potentiële daders en operatoren van wraakpornowebsites er ongestoord hun schadelijke praktijken kunnen verderzetten. Een grensoverschrijdende federale wraakpornowet zou dit probleem oplossen, maar op heden bestaat deze nog niet. De kwaliteit van de bestaande wetten is overigens evenmin een constante zodat er belangrijke verschillen bestaan tussen de verschillende wetten onderling. Zo vereist men in Utah dat de dader effectief ‘wraak’ wou plegen op het slachtoffer (wat daders zonder een dergelijk motief dus straffeloos maakt); andere wetten sluiten dan weer selfies uit van hun bescherming, hoewel deze net het vaakst zonder toestemming worden publiek gemaakt.
Niettemin kunnen we uit de analyse van deze Amerikaanse wraakpornowetten enkele nuttige lessen trekken, zeker wat betreft de juiste afbakening van wat precies onder de noemer ‘ongewenste openbaarmaking van seksuele beelden’ zou moeten vallen en de omschrijving van de verschillende uitzonderingen op de strafbaarstelling die moeten worden voorzien. Het moet bijvoorbeeld mogelijk blijven voor politieagenten om wraakporno te kopiëren en te verzamelen in het kader van een gerechtelijk onderzoek zonder dat zij zich blootstellen aan vervolging. Vooral de wetten van deelstaten New Jersey en Illinois zijn juridisch heel sterk en zouden perfect als inspiratiebron kunnen dienen voor de Belgische wetgever.
Tot op vandaag werd er in België echter nog geen wetsontwerp- of voorstel ingediend dat specifiek wraakporno bestraft. Gelukkig hebben enkele sociale netwerkreuzen zoals o.m. Facebook en Twitter – waar vaak wraakporno wordt gepubliceerd – recentelijk hun beleid aangepast en tolereren zij niet langer dat hun platformen voor dit doel worden gebruikt. Dit wijst op de groeiende maatschappelijke bewustwording en erkenning van het probleem dat wraakporno stelt. Nu ligt de bal in het kamp van de Belgische wetgever om, in navolging van zijn Amerikaanse tegenpool, de vereiste update door te voeren.
___________________________________________
Bibliografie
BIBLIOGRAPHY
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. International Legal Sources
· COE, Convention on Cybercrime, CETS No. 185, 23 November 2001, Budapest.
· COE, Explanatory Report to the Convention on Cybercrime, CETS No. 185.
· COE, Additional Protocol concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, CETS No. 189, 28 January 2003, Strasbourg.
· COE, Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, CETS No. 201, 25 October 2007, Lanzarote.
· COE, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation on self-regulation concerning cyber content (self-regulation and user protection against illegal or harmful content on new communications and information services), 5 September 2001.
· COE, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation on measures to promote the respect for freedom of expression and information with regard to Internet filters, 26 March 2008.
· COE, Global Conference Cooperation against Cybercrime, Guidelines for the Cooperation between Law Enforcement and Internet Service Providers against Cybercrime, 2 April 2008.
· COE, Discussion Paper ‘Cybercrime and Internet’ (draft prepared by H.W.K. KASPERSEN), 5 March 2009.
· COE, Cybercrime Convention Committee, Guidance Note : Trans-border access to data (Article 32), 3 December 2014.
· COE, Council of Europe Commission for Human Rights, The Rule of Law on the Internet and in het Wider Digital World, Issue Paper 2014.
2. Legal Sources of the EU
2.1. Legislation
· EU, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 2010/C 83/02, published 30 March 2010.
· EU, Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (Data Protection Directive).
· EU, Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce).
· EU, Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA.
· EU, Directive 2013/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 August 2013 on attacks against information systems and replacing Council Framework Decision 2005/222/JHA.
· EU, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (General Data Protection Regulation), 25 January 2012, COM/2012/011 final, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52012PC0011 dc 23 May 2015.
2.2. Jurisprudence
· ECtHR 6 May 2003, application nr. 48898/99 (Perna v. Italy).
· ECtHR 18 October 2005, application nr. 5446/03 (Perrin v. United Kingdom).
· ECtHR 2 December 2008, application nr. 2872/02 (KU v. Finland).
· ECtHR 18 December 2012, application nr. 3111/01 (Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey).
· ECtHR 12 November 2013, application nr. 5786/08 (Söderman v. Sweden).
· ECJ 24 November 2011, C-70/10 (Scarlet v. SABAM).
· ECJ 16 February 2012, C-36/10 (SABAM v. Netlog).
· ECJ 16 July 2009, C-5/08 (Infopaq International v. Danske Dagblades Forening).
· ECJ 13 May 2014, C-131/12 (Google Spain and Inc v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Gonzalez).
3. Legal Sources of individual European Member States
3.1. Belgian Legislation
· Law of 8 December 1992 on the protection of the personal privacy with regard to the processing of personal data, BS 18 March 1993.
· Law of 30 June 1994 concerning copyright and neighboring rights, BS 27 July 1994.
· Law of 11 March 2003 concerning certain legal aspects of information-society services, BS 17 March 2003.
· Law of 13 June 2005 concerning electronic communication, BS 26 June 2005.
· Law of 15 December 2013 concerning the implementation of Book XII, “Law of electronic economy”, into the Code of Economic Law, and concerning the insertion of the definitions peculiar to Book XII and of the enforcement provisions peculiar to Book XII, into Books I and XV of the Code of Economic Law, BS 14 January 2014.
· Preparatory Legislative Documents for the Law of 11 March 2003 concerning certain legal aspects of information-society services, Parliamentary Document Chamber of Representatives and Senate 2002 – 2003, no. 50S1480.
· Preparatory Legislative Documents for the Law of 30 October 2008 on the introduction of article 442bis into the Criminal Code criminalizing stalking, Gedr. St. Chamber of Representatives 1996 – 1997, no. 1046/8, 6 and 8.
3.2. Legislation of other European nations
· UK, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill 2015, chapter 2, part 1 (6)(c) 33 – 35, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/33/enacted dc 8 August 2015.
3.3. Belgian Jurisprudence
· Cass. 10 July 1916, Pas. 1917, I, 191.
· Cass. 23 October 1916, Pas. 1917, I, 290.
· Cass. 3 June 1940, Arr. Cass. 1937-40, 61.
· Cass. 13 March 1944, Arr. Cass. 1944, 117.
· Cass. 27 April 1989, Pas. 1989, I, 908.
· Cass. 29 May 1990, AR. 3441.
· Cass. 21 February 2007, AR P.06.1415.F.
· Cass. 23 January 2008, AR P.08.0105.F.
· Cass. 24 May 2011, AR P.10.1990.N.
· Cass. 6 March 2012, AR P.11.1374.N.
· Cass. 6 March 2012, AR P.11.0855.N.
· Cass. 31 March 2015, AR P.14.0293.N.
· Court of Appeals of Brussels, ruling in Criminal Matters, 31 March 1989, unpublished.
· Court of First Instance of the Province of Limburg, Department of Hasselt, ruling in Criminal Matters (18th Chamber), 17 November 2000, AM 2001, Issue 1, 161.
· Court of First Instance of Brussels, Department of Brussels, ruling in Civil Matters, 2 February 2000, R.D.P. 2001, 347.
· Court of First Instance of Brussels, Department of Brussels, ruling in Civil Matters, 20 September 2001, AM 2002, 77.
· Court of First Instance of the Province of Antwerp, Department of Antwerp, ruling in Civil Matters, 8 November 2006, Juristenkrant 2006, Issue 140, 12.
· Court of Commerce of Brussels, Department of Brussels, 31 July 2008, IRDI 2008, Issue 3, 244.
· Court of First Instance of Brussels, Department of Brussels, ruling in Civil Matters, 13 October 2008, JLMB 2009, Issue 22, 1029.
· Court of Commerce of Leuven, Department of Leuven, ruling by the President of the Court on urgent matters, 5 May 2009, Jaarboek Handelspraktijken & Mededinging 2009, 492.
· Court of First Instance of Brussels, Department of Brussels, ruling in Civil Matters, 25 November 2009, AM 2010, Issue 3, 294.
· Court of First Instance of Brussels, Department of Brussels, ruling in Civil Matters, 14 April 2011, JLMB 2012, Issue 21, 988.
· Court of First Instance of Brussels, Department of Brussels, ruling in Civil Matters, 22 December 2011, ICIP 2012, Issue 4, 887.
· Court of First Instance of the Province of Eastern Flanders, Department of Dendermonde, ruling in Criminal Matters (19D Chamber), 20 January 2015, unpublished.
3.4. Jurisprudence of other European nations
· FRA, Cour de Cassation 14 January 2010, AM 2010, Issue 2, 170.
· FRA, TGI (Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris) 15 April 2008, Lafesse v. Dailymotion.
· UK, EWHC 13 (QB) (England and Wales High Court, Queen’s Bench Division) 16 January 2014, Vidall-Hall and Ors v. Google Inc, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/13.html dc 17 April 2015.
· UK, EWHC 850 (QB) (England and Wales High Court, Queen’s Bench Division) 29 March 2012, Contostavlos v. Mendahun, http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/850.html dc 17 April 2015.
3.5. Documents of European institutions / organizations
· EU, European Commission and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, “Joint Communication : Cybersecurity Strategy of the European Union : An open, safe and secure cyberspace”, JOIN (2013) 1 final, 7 February 2013.
· EU, European Commission, “Communication : Internet Policy and Governance : Europe’s role in shaping the future of Internet Governance”, Com (2014) 72 final, 12 February 2014.
· EU, European Commission, “Opinion 5/2009 on online social networking”, O1189/09/EN, Adopted on 12 June 2009 by the Article 29 Working Party, WP 163, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2009/wp163_en.pdf dc 16 April 2015.
· Fact-sheet of the European Commission on the ‘Right to be Forgotten’ Ruling (C-131/12), no date specified, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/dataprotection/files/factsheets/factsheet_data_protection_en.pdf dc 8 April 2015.
· HUSTINX, P., European Data Protection Supervision (EDPS) Opinion of 10 May 2010 on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on combating the sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography, repealing Framework Decision 2004/68/JHA, https://secure.edps.europa.eu/EDPSWEB/webdav/shared/Documents/Consultation/Opinions/2010/10-05-10_Child_Abuse_EN.pdf dc 23 May 2015.
· Guidelines on the implementation of the Court of Justice of the European Union Judgment on “Google Spain and Inc v. Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja Gonzalez” C-131/12, Adopted on 26 November 2014 by the Article 29 Working Party, WP 225, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data-protection/article-29/documentation/opinion-recommendation/files/2014/wp225_en.pdf dc 8 April 2015.
· Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications, 1st Report of Session 2014-2015, HL Paper 37, published 29.07.2014 and available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldselect/ldcomuni/37/37.pdf dc 8 April 2015.
· “Bescherming van persoonsgegevens in België”, Privacy Commission, no date specified, http://www.privacycommission.be/sites/privacycommission/files/documents/bescherming-van-persoonsgegevens-in-belgie.pdf dc 8 April 2015.
4. American Legal Sources
4.1. American Legislation
· U.S. Constitution, First Amendment, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment dc 13 April 2015.
· 17 USC ‘Copyrights’ Chapter 1 – 13, enacted by act on 30 July 1947, ch. 391, 61 Stat. 652, and revised in its entirety by Pub. L. 94-553, title I, §101, 19 Oct. 1976, 90 Stat. 2541, http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title17/chapter1&edition=prelim dc 14 April 2015.
· 18 USC 1030 ‘Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Computers’ Chapter 47, http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title18/part1/chapter47&edition=prelim dc 7 July 2015.
· 18 USC 2251 – 2260A ‘Sexual Exploitation and Other Abuse of Children’ Chapter 10, http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title18/part1/chapter110&edition=prelim dc 29 April 2015.
· 18 USC 2262A ‘Stalking’, added d Pub. L. 104–201, div. A, title X, §1069(a), Sept. 23, 1996, 110 Stat. 2655 ; amended Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title I, §1107(b)(1), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1498 ; Pub. L. 109–162, title I, §114(a), Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 2987 ; Pub. L. 113–4, title I, §107(b), Mar. 7, 2013, 127 Stat. 77., http://uscode.house.gov/browse/prelim@title18/part1/chapter110A&edition=prelim dc 25 April 2015.
· 47 USC 230 ‘Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material’, enacted on 19 June 1934, ch. 653, title II, §230, as added Pub. L. 104-104, title V, 6509, 8 Feb. 1996, 110 Stat. 137; Amended Pub. L. 105-277, div. C, title XIV, 61404(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-739, http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title47-section230&num=0&edition=prelim dc 14 April 2015.
· New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice Section 2C:14-9 - Invasion of privacy, degree of crime; defenses, privileges (NJ Rev Stat § 2C:14-9 (2013)), http://law.justia.com/codes/new-jersey/2013/title-2c/section-2c-14-9/ dc 28 June 2015.
· California Penal Code Section 647(j)(4)(A) & (B) (CA Penal Code § 647(j)(4)(A)-(B)(2013)), http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=639-653.2 dc 28 June 2015.
· Illinois Criminal Code Section 11- 23.5 (720 ILCS 5/11-23.5 (2015)), http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=1876&ChapterID=53&SeqStart=17800000&SeqEnd=25000000 dc 28 June 2015.
4.2. American Jurisprudence
· United States Supreme Court, Judgment of 9 March 1942, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/315/568 dc 13 July 2015.
· United States Supreme Court, Judgment of 21 June 1973, Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/413/15/ dc 7 July 2015.
· United States Supreme Court, Judgment of 3 July 1978, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/438/726/case.html dc 14 July 2015.
· United States Supreme Court, Judgment of 2 July 1982, New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, No. 81-55, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=458&invol=747 dc 25 April 2015.
· United States Supreme Court, Judgment of 24 February 1988, Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/485/46 dc 14 July 2015.
· United States Supreme Court, Judgment of 26 June 1997, Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/844/ dc 19 July 2015.
· United States Supreme Court, Judgment of 21 May 2001, Bartnicky v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1687.ZS.html dc 14 July 2015.
· United States Supreme Court, Judgment of 13 May 2002, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564, https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1293.ZO.html dc 16 July 2015.
· Supreme Court of New York, Judgment of 24 May 1995, Stratton Oakmont Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., 1995 WL 323710, http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/1995-05-24-Prodigy%20Opinion.txt dc 24 July 2015.
· United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, Judgment of 11 September 1984, Lajuan and Billy Wood v. Hustler Magazine Inc., S.D. Tex. 736 F.2d 108410, http://www.ecases.us/case/ca5/441918/wood-v-hustler-magazine-inc dc 16 April 2015.
· United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, Judgment of 27 August 1985, American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, 598 F. Supp. 771 F.2d 323, http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/598/1316/1476351/ 16 July 2015.
· United States court of Appeals, 4th Circuit, Judgment of 12 November 1997, Zeran v. America Online Inc., 129 F.3d 327, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1075207.html dc 24 July 2015.
· Court of Appeals of Texas, Beaumont, Judgment of 10 April 2014, GODADDY.COM, LLC, Appellant v. Hollie TOUPS, et al, Appellees, No. 09–13–00285–CV, http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tx-court-of-appeals/1663288.html dc 11 April 2015.
· District Court of Orange County, Texas, 260th judicial district, Judgment of 17 April 2013, Hollie Toups et. al. v. GoDaddy.com, Texxxan.com et. al., No. D-130018-C.
· Notice of motion and motion to amend & certify the Order of denial of the motion of the defendant GoDaddy.com for dismissal of 17 April 2013, Order issued by the District Court of Orange County, Texas, 260th judicial district, in the case of Hollie Toups et. al. v. GoDaddy.com, Texxxan.com et. al., No. D-130018-C, https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/notice-of-motion-and-motion-for-certification-of-order-for-interlocutory-appeal.pdf dc 11 April 2015.
· District Court of Clark County, Nevada, Judgment of 8 March 2013, James McGibney v. Hunter Moore, No. A-12-667156-C.
· District Court of Hawaii, District of Hawaii, Judgment of 11 July 2011, Taylor v. Franko, No. 09-00002 JMS/RLP, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-hid-1_09-cv-00002/pdf/USCOURTS-hid-1_09-cv-00002-2.pdf dc 25 June 2015.
4.3. Documents / publications of American institutions / organizations
· Attorney General’s Office, “Cyberstalking : A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry”, Report of Attorney General Janet Reno to the Vice President of 16 September 1999, http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/1999/September/421ag.htm dc 23 April 2015.
· FBI, “Two California Men Arrested in E-Mail Hacking Scheme That Yielded Nude Photos That were Posted on ‘Revenge Porn’ Website”, posted following the formal indictment by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Central District of California on 23 January 2014, http://www.fbi.gov/losangeles/press-releases/2014/two-california-men-arrested-in-e-mail-hacking-scheme-that-yielded-nude-photos-that-were-posted-on-revenge-porn-website dc 11 April 2015.
· FTC, “Website Operator Banned from the ‘Revenge Porn’ Business After FTC Charges He Unfairly Posted Nude Photos”, Press Release FTC in the matter of Craig Britton, 29 January 2015, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/01/website-operator-banned-revenge-porn-business-after-ftc-charges dc 10 April 2015.
5. Doctrine
· AKDENIZ, Y., "Governance of Pornography and Child Pornography on the Global Internet: A Multi-Layered Approach," in EDWARDS, L., WAELDE, C. (eds.), Law and the Internet: Regulating Cyberspace, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1997, 223-241; http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/governan.htm dc 10 May 2015.
· ALEXANDER, L., “’Gamers’ don’t have to be your audience. ‘Gamers’ are over”, Gamasutra 28 August 2014, http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php dc 1 August 2015.
· AMBROSE, M. L., AUSLOOS, J., “The Right to Be Forgotten Across The Pond”, Journal of Information Policy 2013, Vol. 3, 1 – 23, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032325 dc 24 July 2015.
· AUGUST, R., “International Cyber-jurisdiction: A Comparative Analysis”, American Business Law Journal June 2002, Vol. 39, Issue 4, 531 – 574, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2002.tb00305.x/abstract dc 26 April 2015.
· BAETEMAN, G., GULDIX, E., “Staat van personen”, in Overzicht van rechtspraak. Personen- en familierecht (1995 – 2000), TPR 2001, Issue 3, 1561 – 1744.
· BALMER, S., “The Limits of Free Speech, Pornography and the Law”, Aberdeen Student Law Review 2010, Vol. 1, Issue 66, 66 – 82, https://www.abdn.ac.uk/law/documents/steven_balmer.pdf dc 26 April 2015.
· BARAK, A., “Sexual Harassment on the Internet”, Social Science Computer Review Spring 2005, Vol. 23, Issue 1, 77 – 92, http://ssc.sagepub.com/content/23/1/77.abstract dc 23 April 2015.
· BARTOW, A., "Fair Use and the Fairer Sex: Gender, Feminism, and Copyright Law", American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 2006, Vol. 14, Issue 3, 551 – 584, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=902632 dc 17 May 2015.
· BARTOW, A., "Pornography, Coercion, and Copyright Law 2.0", Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 2008, 10.4, 101-142, http://works.bepress.com/ann_bartow/31 dc 14 April 2015.
· BARTOW, A., “Copyright Law and Pornography : Reconsidering Incentives to Create and Distribute Pornography”, University of Baltimore Law Forum 2008, Vol. 39, Issue 75, 75 – 86, http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/lawfaculty/893/ dc 7 July 2015.
· BARTOW, A., “Internet Defamation as Profit Center : The Monetization of Online Harassment”, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender 2009, Vol. 32, Issue 2, 383 - 429, http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlg/vol322/383-430.pdf dc 26 April 2015.
· BARTOW, A., “Copyright Law and Pornography”, Oregon Law Review 2012, Vol. 91, Issue 1, 1 – 56, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2187432 dc 22 July 2015.
· BERKMOES, H., “Identificatie van (gebruikers van) elektronische communicatie”, in X., Postal Memoralis. Lexicon strafrecht, strafvordering en bijzondere wetten, Kluwer, Mechelen, 2014, 3/9 – 11/19.
· BOCIJ, P., Cyberstalking : Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family, Westport, Praeger Publishers, 2004, 268.
· BOISTER, N., An Introduction to Transnational Criminal Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2012, 121.
· BRENNER, S., “Cybercrime Investigation and Prosecution : The Role of Penal and Procedural Law”, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law 2001, Vol. 8, Issue 2, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MurUEJL/2001/8.html dc 26 April 2015.
· BRENNER, S., GOODMAN, M., “The Emerging Consensus on Criminal Conduct in Cyberspace”, U.C.L.A. Journal of Law & Technology 2002, Vol. 6, 1 – 153, http://www.lawtechjournal.com/home/articles/37/ dc 26 April 2015.
· BRENNER, S., KOOPS, B-J., “Approaches to Cybercrime Jurisdiction”, Journal of High Technology Law 2004, Vol. 4, Nr. 1, 1 – 46.
· BRENNER, S., SCHERHA, J., “Transnational Evidence Gathering And Local Prosecution Of International Cybercrime”, The John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law Spring 2002, Vol. 20, Issue 3, Article 1, 347 – 396, http://repository.jmls.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1139&context=jitpl dc 26 April 2015.
· BROWN, K. V., “The Internet can Forget – Why did it take so long to ban revenge porn?”, Fusion Online 29 June 2015, http://fusion.net/story/157734/revenge-porn-bans-were-long-time-coming/ dc 3 august 2015.
· CADWALLADR, C., “Charlotte Laws’ fight with Hunter Moore, the internet’s revenge porn king”, The Guardian online 30 March 2014, last modified 3 June 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014/mar/30/charlotte-laws-fight-with-internet-revenge-porn-king dc 26 April 2015.
· CALLEBAUT, E., “Kinderrechten inzake Seksualiteitsbeleving : Van bescherming naar het toekennen van rechten?”, Master Thesis Ugent, 2011, 205, http://lib.ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/001/786/947/RUG01-001786947_2012_0001_AC.pdf dc 10 May 2015.
· COTTIM, A., “Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism and Jurisdiction : An Analysis of Article 22 of the COE Convention on Cybercrime”, European Journal of Legal Studies Autumn 2010, Vol. 2, Issue 3, http://www.ejls.eu/6/78UK.htm dc 26 April 2015.
· COUDERT, F., “SABAM v. Netlog: ECJ confirms general filtering systems installed for the prevention of copyright infringements are disproportionate”, Timelex online blog 16 February 2012, http://www.timelex.eu/nl/blog/detail/sabam-v-netlog-ecj-confirms-general-filtering-systems-installed-for-the-prevention-of-copyright-infringements-are-disproportionate dc 27 May 2015.
· CULP-RESSLER, T., “House GOP schedules Vote on a National Abortion Ban”, ThinkProgress Online 13 January 2015, http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/01/13/3611027/house-gop-abortion-vote/ dc 8 August 2015.
· DAHL, J., “Audrie Pott, Rehteah Parsons suicides show sexual cyber-bullying is ‘pervasive’ and ‘getting worse,’ expert says”, CBS News site 12 April 2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/audrie-pott-rehtaeh-parsons-suicides-show-sexual-cyber-bulling-is-pervasive-and-getting-worse-expert-says/ dc 3 July 2015.
· DE BUSSCHER, M., (et al.), Strafrecht – Larcier Wet en Duiding, Brussel, Larcier, 2012.
· DE HERT, P., “De Wet van 28 november 2000 inzake informaticacriminaliteit en het materieel strafrecht. Een wet die te laat komt of een wet die er nooit had moeten komen?”, T. Strafr. 2001, 286 – 334.
· DE HERT, P., MILLEN, J., GROENEN, A., “Het delict belaging in wetgeving en rechtspraak. Bijna tot redelijke proporties gebracht”, T. Strafr. 2008, 3 – 10.
· DE HERT P., SAELENS, R., “Recht op afbeelding”, TPR 2009, Vol. 2, 867 – 917.
· DE NAUW, A., Inleiding tot het Algemeen Strafrecht, Brugge, Die Keure, 2006, 220.
· DE NAUW, A., Inleiding tot het Bijzonder Strafrecht, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2010, 471.
· DE PAUW, E., “Sociale controle in onlinegemeenschappen : een taak voor de overheid of volstaat zelfregulering?”, De orde van de dag March 2010, Episode 49, 5 – 14.
· DECEW, J., “Privacy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 14 May 2002 (substantive revision 9 August 2013), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/privacy/ dc 19 July 2015.
· DEENE, J., “Intellectuele Rechten Kroniek 2010”, NJW 2011, Issue 245, 442 - 449.
· DEMEYER, K., LIEVENS, E., DUMORTIER, J., “Blocking and Removing Illegal Child Sexual Content : Analysis from a Technical and Legal Perspective”, Policy & Internet 2012, 4: 3-4, 1- 23.
· DERY, M., “Naked Lunch : Talking Realcore with Sergio Messina”, in JACOBS, K., et.al. (eds.), C’Lick Me : a Netporn Studies Reader, Amsterdam, Institute of Network Cultures, 2007, 17 – 30, www.sergiomessina.com/media/clckmdrmssn.pdf dc 23 April 2015.
· DESAI, S., “Smile for the Camera : The Revenge Pornography Dilemma, California’s Approach and its Constitutionality”, Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 2015, Vol. 42, Issue 2, 443 – 469, http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V42/I2/Desai_Website%20FINAL.pdf dc 22 April 2015.
· DE SCHEPPER, K., VERBRUGGEN, F., “Ontsnappen space invaders aan onze pacmannen? De materiële en formele strafrechtsmacht van België bij strafbare weigering van medewerking door elektronische dienstverleners”, T. Strafr. 2013, Vol. 3, 143 – 166.
· DIERICKX, L., Het recht op afbeelding, Antwerpen, Intersentia, 2005.
· DONALDSON, S., “New Texting Laws Put College Students At Risk”, Public Release University of Rhode Island 20 July 2012, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/uori-nsl072011.php dc 22 April 2015.
· EDWARDS, L., “Revenge porn: why the right to be forgotten is the right remedy”, 29 July 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/29/revenge-porn-right-to-be-forgotten-house-of-lords dc 13 April 2015.
· FESTA, P., “GeoCities’ porn ads spark controversy”, CNET website 30 April 1999, http://www.cnet.com/news/geocities-porn-ads-spark-controversy/ dc 1 August 2015.
· FILIPOVIC, J., “Blogging While Female : How Internet Misogyny Parallels ‘Real-World” Harassment”, Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 2007-2008, Vol. 19, 295 - 332, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/yjfem19&div=13&id=&page= dc 27 April 2015.
· FRANKLIN, Z., “Justice for Revenge Porn Victims: Legal Theories to Overcome Claims of Civil Immunity by Operators of Revenge Porn Websites”, California Law Review, 2014, Vol. 102, Issue 5, 1303 – 1335, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol102/iss5/11/ dc 10 April 2015.
· FRANKS, M. A., “Unwilling Avatars : Idealism and Discrimination in Cyberspace”, Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 2011, Vol. 20, Issue 2, 224 – 249, http://cjgl.cdrs.columbia.edu/articles/unwilling-avatars-idealism-and-discrimination-in-cyberspace/ dc 16 April 2015.
· FRANKS, M. A., “Adventures in Victim Blaming: Revenge Porn Edition”, Concurring Opinions, 1 February 2013, http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/02/adventures-in-victim-blaming-revenge-porn-edition.html 12 April 2015.
· FRANKS, M. A., “Why We Need a Federal Criminal Law Response to Revenge porn”, Concurring Opinions 15 February 2013, http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/02/why-we-need-a-federal-criminal-law-response-to-revenge-porn.html dc 27 April 2015.
· FRANKS, M. A., “Combating Non-Consensual Pornography – A Working Paper”, last edited 7 October 2013, 1 – 18, http://www.endrevengeporn.org/main_2013/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Franks-NCP-Working-Paper-10.7.pdf dc 3 July 2015.
· FRANKS, M. A., “Drafting an Effective ‘Revenge Porn Law’ : A Guide for Legislators”, End Revenge Porn Online 18 July 2014, http://www.endrevengeporn.org/main_2013/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Guide-for-Legislators_7-18-14.pdf dc 25 April 2015.
· FRANKS, M. A., “Combating Non-Consensual Pornography – A Working Paper”, last edited 7 September 2014, 1 – 17, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2336537 dc 3 July 2015.
· FRANKS, M. A., “How to Defeat ‘Revenge Porn’ : First, Recognize It’s About Privacy, Not Revenge”, Huffington Post Online 22 June 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-franks/how-to-defeat-revenge-porn_b_7624900.html dc 5 July 2015.
· GEMIN, T., “Realcore : Sergio Messina And Online Porn”, Digicult Online Magazine 2006, Issue 19, http://www.digicult.it/digimag/issue-019/realcore-sergio-messina-and-online-porn/ dc 23 April 2015.
· GILBERT, D., “Pink Meth Revenge Porn Darknet Website Shut Down by FBI in Operation Onymous”, International Business Times Online 10 November 2014, http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/pink-meth-revenge-porn-darknet-website-shut-down-by-fbi-operation-onymous-1474013 dc 2 August 2015.
· GILDEN, A., “Cyberbullying and the Innocence Narrative”, Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review 2013, Vol. 48, 357 – 407, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2208737 dc 3 July 2015.
· GILES, B., “State Legislators retaliate against ‘revenge porn’”, LegalNews.com 25 December 2013, http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/1384213 dc 4 July 2015.
· GOLDBERG, C., “Seven Reasons Illinois is Leading the Fight Against Revenge Porn”, End Revenge Porn Online 31 December 2014, http://www.endrevengeporn.org/seven-reasons-illinois-leading-fight-revenge-porn/ dc 25 April 2015.
· GOLDMAN, E., “What Should We Do About Revenge Porn Sites Like Texxxan?”, Tech., Mktg. & L. Blog 28 January 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/01/28/what-should-we-do-about-revenge-porn-sites-like-texxxan/ dc 14 April 2015.
· GOLDMAN, E., “California’s New Law Shows It’s Not Easy to Regulate Revenge Porn”, Tech., Mktg. & L. Blog 16 October 2013, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/10/08/californias-new-law-shows-its-not-easy-to-regulate-revenge-porn/ dc 4 July 2015.
· GOLDSMITH, J., “The Internet and the Legitimacy of Remote Cross-Border Searches”, University of Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers (Chicago Unbound) 2001, working paper nr. 16, 1 – 17, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=285732 dc 19 April 2015.
· HALLEMANS, A., “Cassatie vergist zich bij de invulling van de geharmoniseerde oorspronkelijkheidsvereiste in het auteursrecht”, in X., Jaarboek Marktpraktijken, Intellectuele Eigendom en Mededinging 2012, 948 – 951.
· HALPER, S. W., “Copyright Law and the Challenge of Digital Technology”, in GROSS, L. P., KATZ, J. S., RUBY, J., (eds.), Image Ethics in the Digital Age, Minnesota University Press, Minneapolis, 2003, 143 – 170.
· HAMDANI, A., “Who’s Liable for Cyberwrongs?”, Cornell Law Review May 2002, Vol. 87, Issue 4, 901 – 957, http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol87/iss4/1 dc 30 May 2015.
· HARDY, S., “The New Pornographies : Representation of Realities?”, in ATTWOOD, F. (ed.), Mainstreaming Sex : The Sexualisation of Western Culture, London, IB Tauris & Co. Ltd., 2009, chapter I (pages unnumbered).
· HARTZOG, W., “How to Fight Revenge Porn”, The Center for Internet and Society Blog (Stanford Law School) 10 May 2013, http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/05/how-fight-revenge-porn dc 16 April 2015.
· HATHAWAY, J., “What is Gamergate, and Why? An Explainer for Non-Geeks”, Gawker 10 October 2014, http://gawker.com/what-is-gamergate-and-why-an-explainer-for-non-geeks-1642909080 dc 1 August 2015.
· HAYNES, A. M., “The Age of Consent : When is Sexting No Longer Speech Integral to Criminal Conduct”, Cornell Law Review January 2012, Vol. 97, Issue 2, 369 – 404, http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol97/iss2/5 dc 22 April 2015.
· HELLMAN, D., “The Expressive Dimension of Equal Protection”, University of Minnesota Law Review Fall 2000, Vol. 85, Issue 10, 1 – 87, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=233025 dc 26 April 2015.
· HENRARD, K., Mensenrechten vanuit international en nationaal perspectief, Den Haag, Boom Juridische Uitgevers, 2006, 438.
· HESS, A., “Reddit Has Banned Revenge Porn. Sort Of.”, Slate 25 February 2015, http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/02/25/reddit_bans_revenge_porn_victims_advocates_and_the_aclu_react_to_the_new.html dc 2 August 2015.
· HILDEBRANDT, M., “Extraterritorial jurisdiction to enforce in cyberspace? : Bodin, Schmitt, Grotius in cyberspace”, University of Toronto Law Journal 2013, Vol. 63, Nr. 2, 196 – 224.
· HILL, K., “Hunter Moore Will Post Your Nude Photos But Will Only Include Your Home Address If He Thinks You’re A Horrible Person”, Forbes 12 May 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/12/05/hunter-moore-is-going-to-start-posting-your-nude-photos-again-but-will-only-post-your-home-address-if-he-thinks-youre-a-horrible-person/ dc 28 May 2015.
· HOLNESS, T., “Testimony for the House Judiciary Committee – January 28, 2014”, American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland website, http://www.aclu-md.org/uploaded_files/0000/0497/hb_43_-_revenge_pornography.pdf dc 12 July 2015.
· HUGHES, J., “The Internet and the Persistence of Law”, Boston College Law Review 2003, Vol. 43, 359 – 388, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=370380 dc 27 May 2015.
· HUMBACH, J. A., "Privacy and the Right to Free Expression", First Amendment Law Review 2013, Vol. 11, 11 – 89, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1996581 dc 14 July 2015.
· JANSSENS, M., VANHEES, H., VANOVERMEIRE, V., “De intellectuele eigendomsrechten verankerd in het Wetboek Economisch Recht : een eerste analyse”, IRDI 2014, Issue 2, 452 – 528.
· JAISHANKAR, K., UMA SANKARY, V.,“Cyberstalking : A Global Menace in the Information Super Highway”, Revised version of Paper presented at 29th All India Criminology Conference at Madurai Kamaraj University, 2006, http://www.erces.com/journal/articles/archives/volume2/v03/v02.htm dc 28 April 2015.
· KATYAL, N. K., “Criminal Law in Cyberspace”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2001, Vol. 149, 1003 – 1114, http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol149/iss4/2/ dc 30 May 2015.
· KEARNS, P., “The Judicial Nemesis : Artistic Freedom and the European Court of Human Rights”, The Irish Law Journal 2012, Vol. 1, 56 – 92, http://irishlawjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/The-Judicial-Nemesis-Artistic-Freedom-and-the-European-Court-of-Human-Rights.pdf dc 27 April 2015.
· KEATS-CITRON, D., “Law’s Expressive Value in Combating Cyber Gender Harassment”, Michigan Law Review 2009, Vol. 108, 373 – 416, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1352442 dc 18 April 2015.
· KEATS-CITRON, D., “Cyber Civil Rights”, Boston University Law Review 2009, Vol. 89, 61 – 125, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1271900 dc 23 April 2015.
· KEATS-CITRON, D. “Mainstreaming Privacy Torts”, California Law Review 31 December 2010, Vol. 98, Issue 6, 1805 – 1852, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol98/iss6/3/ dc 24 July 2015.
· KEATS-CITRON, D., “Revenge Porn and the Uphill Battle to Sue Site Operators”, Concurring Opinions 25 January 2013, http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/01/revenge-porn-and-the-uphill-battle-to-pierce-section-230-immunity-part-ii.html dc 24 July 2015.
· KEATS-CITRON, D., “Revenge Porn and the Uphill Battle to Pierce Section 230 Immunity (Part II)”, Concurring Opinions 25 January 2013, http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/01/revenge-porn-and-the-uphill-battle-to-sue-site-operators.html dc 24 July 2015.
· KEATS-CITRON, D., “Revenge Porn Site Operators and Federal Criminal Liability”, Concurring Opinions 30 January 2013, http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/01/revenge-porn-site-operators-and-federal-criminal-liability.html dc 18 April 2015.
· KEATS-CITRON, D., FRANKS, M.-A., “Criminalizing Revenge Porn”, Wake Forest Law Review, 2014, Vol. 49, 345 – 391, http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/fac_pubs/1420/ dc 10 April 2015.
· KEATS-CITRON, D., “Could Revenge Porn Victims Seek Civil Liability Against Hunter Moore?”, Concurring Opinions 17 February 2014, http://concurringopinions.com/archives/2014/02/could-revenge-porn-victims-seek-civil-liability-against-hunter-moore.html dc 18 April 2015.
· KERR, O. S., “Virtual Crime, Virtual Deterrence : A Skeptical View of Self-Help, Architecture and Civil Liberty”, Journal of Law, Economics & Policy 1 January 2005, Vol. 1, 1 – 28, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=605964 dc 14 May 2015.
· KITCHEN, A. N., “The Need to Criminalize Revenge Porn: How a Law Protecting Victims Can Avoid Running Afoul of the First Amendment”, Chicago-Kent Law Review 30 January 2015, Vol. 90, Issue 1, 247 - 299, http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol90/iss1/11 11 April 2015.
· KUR, D., DREIER, T., European Intellectual Property Law – Text, Cases & Materials, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2013, 548.
· KUSHNER, A., “The Need for Sexting Law Reform : Appropriate Punishments for Teenage Behaviors”, University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change 2013, Vol. 16, Issue 3, 281 – 302, http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jlasc/vol16/iss3/4 dc 22 April 2015.
· LAIRD, L., “Victims are Taking on ‘Revenge Porn’ Websites for Posting Photos They Didn’t Consent To”, (American Bar Association) ABA-Journal 1 November 2013, http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/victims_are_taking_on_revenge_porn_websites_for_posting_photos_they_didnt_c dc 25 April 2015.
· LEMMENS, K., “Misbruiken van de meningsuiting via Internet : is het recht Web 2.0-compatibel? Pleidooi voor een technologieneutrale bescherming van de uitingsvrijheid”, De orde van de dag March 2010, Episode 49, 15 – 22.
· LEVENDOWSKI, A., “Using Copyright to Combat Revenge Porn”, NYU Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law 2014, Vol. 3, 422 – 446, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2374119 dc 22 April 2015.
· LEWIS, H., “Gamergate : a brief history of a computer-age war”, The Guardian 11 January 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/11/gamergate-a-brief-history-of-a-computer-age-war dc 28 April 2015.
· LICHTER, S., “Unwanted Exposure : Civil and Criminal Liability for Revenge Porn Hosts and Posters”, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 28 May 2013, http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/privacy/unwanted-exposure-civil-and-criminal-liability-for-revenge-porn-hosts-and-posters dc 10 April 2015.
· LICHTMAN, D., POSNER, E., “Holding Internet Service Providers Accountable”, University of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 217, July 2004, 1 - 51, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=573502 dc 15 May 2015.
· LIEVENS, E., “Cyberpesten en de wet (België)”, Mediawijs Augustus 2014, http://mediawijs.be/dossiers/dossier-cyberpesten/cyberpesten-de-wet dc 16 April 2015.
· LIPTON, J. D., “Combating Cyber-Victimization”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal March 2011, Vol. 26, Issue 2, 1103 – 1156, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj/vol26/iss2/5 dc 25 April 2015.
· LIPTON, J. D., “Cyberbullying and the First Amendment”, Florida Coastal Law Review 2012, Vol. 14, Issue 99, 100 – 130, https://www.fcsl.edu/sites/fcsl.edu/files/FLC103.pdf dc 25 April 2015.
· MACKINNON, C., “Pornography, Civil Rights and Speech” in VAUGHN, L., Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues, New York, W. W. Norton & Company, 2010, 856, http://www.analogfeminism.net/Pornography__Civil_Rights_and_Speech_-_MacKinnon_DOING_ETHICS_ed_by_Lewis_Vaughn.pdf dc 26 April 2015.
· MARTINEZ, C., “An Argument for States to Outlaw ‘Revenge Porn’ and for Congress to Amend 47 U.S.C. § 230 : How Our Current Laws Do Little to Protect Victims”, Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law & Policy Spring 2014, Vol. 14, Nr. 2, 236 – 252, http://tlp.law.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/tlp/article/view/141 dc 16 April 2015.
· MASNICK, M., “Federal Revenge Porn Bill Will Look To Criminalize Websites”, 2 April 2014, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140330/08413326735/federal-revenge-porn-bill-will-look-to-criminalize-websites.shtml dc 10 April 2015.
· MCCORMICK, P., “Oscar-winning Alum’s Settlement Unveiled”, The PCC Courier 15 October 2014, http://www.pcccourier.com/2014/10/15/dlb-2/ dc 27 June 2015.
· MCCULLAGH, D., “N.Y. attorney general forces ISPs to curb Usenet access”, CNET Online 10 June 2008, http://www.cnet.com/news/n-y-attorney-general-forces-isps-to-curb-usenet-access/ dc 1 August 2015.
· MISTLER, S., “Maine lawmakers move to outlaw revenge porn”, Portland Press Herald 26 February 2015, http://www.pressherald.com/2015/02/26/maine-lawmakers-move-to-outlaw-revenge-porn/ dc 25 April 2015.
· MURAT, A., “Klachtendelicten”, in X., Postal Memoralis. Lexicon strafrecht, strafvordering en bijzondere wetten, Kluwer, Mechelen, 2014, K 58/01 – K 58 / 04.
· NAJDOWSKI, C. J., HILDEGRAND, M. M., “The Criminalization of Revenge Porn”, Monitor on Psychology January 2014, Vol. 45, Issue 1, http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/01/jn.aspx dc 11 April 2015.
· NELSON, S., “Congress Set to Examine Revenge Porn”, USNews Online 30 July 2015, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/07/30/congress-set-to-examine-revenge-porn dc 2 August 2015.
· NOORLANDER, P., “European Court of Human Rights judgments on the right to freedom of expression – Bulletin XXIX: Focus on obscenity, public morals and freedom of expression”, Human Rights Action Montenegro 20 January 2014, 1 – 5, http://www.hraction.org/wp-content/uploads/Bulletin-XXIX-Obscenity-and-public-morals.pdf dc 25 May 2015.
· NUTTALL, C., “Police hail Net porn ruling”, BBC Sci/Tech 1 July 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/382152.stm dc 27 April 2015.
· O’FLOINN, M., “It wasn’t all white light before Prism: Law enforcement practices in gathering data abroad, and proposals for further transnational access at the Council of Europe”, Computer Law & Security Review 2013, nr. 29, 610 – 615.
· PARKIN, S., “Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest”, The New Yorker Online 9 September 2014, http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/zoe-quinns-depression-quest dc 1 August 2015.
· PLANK, E., “Hunter Moore Lawsuit : Anti-Bullying Activist Gets Revenge on Revenge Porn King”, Mic 12 March 2013, http://mic.com/articles/29558/hunter-moore-lawsuit-anti-bullying-activist-gets-revenge-on-revenge-porn-king dc 26 April 2015.
· REDING, V., “EU Data Protection Reform and Social Media: Encouraging Citizens’ Trust and Creating New Opportunities”, speech at the New Frontiers for Social Media Marketing Conference, Paris, 29 November 2011, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-11-827_en.htm?locale=en dc 24 July 2015.
· REMY, A., “Telematica: aspecifieke misdrijven”, in X., Postal Memoralis. Lexicon strafrecht, strafvordering en bijzondere wetten, Kluwer, Mechelen, 2014, T 57/01 – T 57 – 26.
· RICHARDS, R. D., CALVERT, C., “When Sex and Cell Phones Collide : Inside the Prosecution of a Teen Sexting Case”, Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal 2009, Vol. 32, Issue 1, 1 – 40, http://comm.psu.edu/assets/pdf/pennsylvania-center-for-the-first-amendment/sexcellphones.pdf dc 29 April 2015.
· ROGERS, A., “House GOP Pulls Anti-Abortion Bill on Roe v. Wade Anniversary”, Time Magazine Online 22 January 2015, http://time.com/3678280/house-republicans-abortion-bill/ dc 8 August 2015.
· RONNEBURGER, A. E., “A Response to Ann Bartow’s Copyright Law and Pornography”, Oregon Law Review Online July 2013, Vol. 91, Issue 1, 39 – 46, http://law.uoregon.edu/org/olr/volumes/91/4/documents/Ronneburger.pdf dc 14 April 2015.
· ROTENBERG, M., JACOBS, D., “Updating the Law of Information Privacy : The New Framework of the European Union”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy Spring 2013, Vol. 36, Issue 2, 605 – 652, http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/36_2_605_Rotenberg_Jacobs.pdf dc 16 April 2015.
· SEGAN, S., “R.I.P. Usenet 1980 – 2008”, PC Mag Online 31 July 2008, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2326849,00.asp dc 1 August 2015.
· SEITZ, N.,"Transborder Search : A New Perspective in Law Enforcement?”, Yale Journal of Law and Technology 2005, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Article 2, 23 – 50, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol7/iss1/2 dc 26 April 2015.
· SCHILLEBEECKX, Y., “Mijn naam is niet ‘hey sexy’”, blogpost of 7 March 2015, http://www.thespectacularreality.com/2015/03/07/mijn-lichaam-is-van-mij/ dc 30 May 2015.
· SCHUERMANS, F., “Elektronische belaging : moreel bestanddeel van het misdrijf – Noot bij Corr. Turnhout 16 mei 2012”, T. Strafr. 2012, Vol. 6, 476.
· SINGHAL, A., “’Revenge porn’ and Search”, Google Public Policy Blogspot 18 June 2015, http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.be/2015/06/revenge-porn-and-search.html dc 3 August 2015.
· SIOEN, L., VANKERSSHAEVER, S., “Het voelt als een verkrachting, en je kunt er niets tegen doen”, De Standaard Online 22 September 2015, http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20140919_01277466 dc 1 August 2015.
· SNOEYS, A., “Experte seksueel strafrecht : ‘Strafwetboek is niet aangepast aan onze tijdsgeest’”, De Morgen (Online) 9 April 2015, http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/experte-seksueel-strafrecht-strafwetboek-is-niet-aangepast-aan-onze-tijdsgeest-a2281457/ dc 18 April 2015.
· SPOOR, J.H., VERKADE, D. W. F., VISSER, J. G., Auteursrecht: auteursrecht, naburige rechten en databankenrecht, Mechelen, Kluwer, 2011, 768.
· STEVENS, L, “Stalking strafbaar – Commentaar bij de wet van 30 oktober 1998 tot invoeging van artikel 442bis in het Strafwetboek houdende de strafbaarstelling van belaging”, RW 1998-1999, nr. 38, 1377 – 1380.
· STEVENS, L., “Parket moet (ex-)partnergeweld ernstig nemen”, De Juristenkrant 2001, Issue 25, 2.
· STEVENS, L., “Grooming en cyberlokking strafbaar. Uitbreiding van de strafrechtelijke bescherming van de seksuele integriteit van minderjarigen in cyberspace”, RW 2014-2015, nr. 22, 844 – 855.
· STOKES, J. K., “The Indecent Internet : Resisting Unwarranted Internet Exceptionalism in Combating Revenge Porn”, Berkeley Technology Law Journal January 2014, Vol. 29, Issue 4, 929 – 952, http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2040&context=btlj dc 14 April 2015.
· STOL, W., “Filteren van Internet : een politietaak?”, De orde van de dag March 2010, Episode 49, 43 – 50.
· SWAMINATHA, T., "The Fourth Amendment Unplugged : Electronic Evidence Issues & Wireless Defenses”, Yale Journal of Law and Technology 2005, Vol. 7, Issue 1, Article 3, 58 – 86, http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjolt/vol7/iss1/3/ dc 26 April 2015.
· TENNISSEN, M., “Judgment in favor of ISP in ‘revenge porn’ case stands; Texas Supreme Court denies review”, The Southeast Texas Record 2 December 2014, http://setexasrecord.com/news/300197-judgment-in-favor-of-isp-in-revenge-porn-case-stands-texas-supreme-court-denies-review dc 10 April 2015.
· TIKK, E., Comprehensive legal approach to cyber security (doctoral thesis), Tartu, Tartu University Press, 2011, 170, https://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/17914/tikk_eneken.pdf?sequence=1 dc 26 April 2015.
· TIMOFEEVA, Y., “Worldwide Prescriptive Jurisdiction in Internet Content Controversies : A Comparative Analysis”, Connecticut Journal of International Law 2005, Vol. 20, 199 – 232, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=637961 dc 26 April 2015.
· TSHIANANGA, B., “Europees Hof van Justitie : Filtering in strijd met Europees recht”, Timelex online blog 24 November 2011, http://www.timelex.eu/nl/blog/detail/europees-hof-van-justitie-filtering-in-strijd-met-europees-recht dc 27 May 2015.
· TSOULIS-REAY, A., “A Brief History of Revenge Porn”, New York Magazine 21 July 2013, http://nymag.com/news/features/sex/revenge-porn-2013-7/ dc 26 April 2015.
· VALCKE, P., LEFEVER, K., Media Law in The European Union, Alphen aan den Rijn, Kluwer Law International, 2012, 128.
· VALCKE, P., LENAERTS, M., KUCZERAWY, A., “Who’s Author, Editor and Publisher of User-Generated content? Applying Traditional Media Concepts to UGC Providers”, International Review of Law, Computers & Technology 1 June 2014, 83 – 99, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2584916 dc 19 April 2015.
· VANDEPLAS, A., “Aanranding van de eerbaarheid bij verrassing – Noot bij Cass. 20 september 2005”, RW 2005 – 2006, 1661 – 1662.
· VANDEPLAS, A., “Betreffende beledigingen – Noot onder Corr. Brugge (13 K.) 18 april 2001”, RW 2002 – 2003, Vol. 14, 551 – 552.
· VANDORME, S., “Geen strafuitsluiting voor website die alleen verwijst naar kinderporno”, De Juristenkrant 10 March 2004, nr. 85, 6.
· VANDORME, S., “Zijn het stiekem filmen van seksuele betrekkingen en andere vormen van voyeurisme strafbaar als aanranding van de eerbaarheid?”, T. Strafr. 2014, Vol. 6, Issue 41, 364 – 370.
· VERMEULEN, G., DHONT, F., “Bescherming van minderjarigen via het strafrecht. Verdiensten en beperkingen van de Wet van 28 november 2000 betreffende de strafrechtelijke bescherming van minderjarigen”, T. Strafr. 2002, 124 – 136.
· VICKERS, A., “Pulling the Porn”, The Guardian Online 7 May 2001, http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2001/may/07/media.mondaymediasection dc 1 August 2015.
· VOLOKH, E., “First Amendment Exceptions and History”, The Volokh Conspiracy (website) 20 April 2010, http://volokh.com/2010/04/20/first-amendment-exceptions-and-history/ dc 18 July 2015.
· VOLOKH, E., “One-to-one Speech v. One-to-many Speech, Criminal Harassment Laws and ‘Cyberstalking’”, Northwestern University Law Review 2013, Vol. 17, Issue 2, 731 – 794, http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/crimharass.pdf dc 30 June 2015.
· VOLOKH, E., “Florida ‘Revenge Porn’ Bill”, The Volokh Conspiracy (website) 10 April 2013, http://volokh.com/2013/04/10/florida-revenge-porn-bill/ dc 18 July 2015.
· VOORHOOF, D., European Media Law – Collection of Materials 2012-2013, Herentals, Knops Books, 2012, 314.
· VOORHOOF, D., “Recente rechtspraak belaagt expressievrijheid op internet”, Juristenkrant 2013, Vol. 278, 3.
· VROMAN, F., “Stalking (belaging)”, in X., Postal Memoralis. Lexicon strafrecht, strafvordering en bijzondere wetten, Kluwer, Mechelen, 2014, S 106/5 – S 106/21.
· WALKER, R. K., “The Right to Be Forgotten”, Hastings Law Review 2012, Vol. 64, 257 – 286, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2017967 dc 24 July 2015.
· WELLS, W. E., "Protecting The Victims Of Child Pornography: An Analysis Of The Current State Of The Law, With A View Towards Amending The CDA 230 Safe Harbor", eRepository@Seton Hall Law 1 May 2014, 1 – 26, http://scholarship.shu.edu/student_scholarship/605 dc 16 April 2015.
· WEST, C., “Pornography and Censorship”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 5 May 2004, revised on 1 October 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/ dc 25 May 2015.
· WHITEHURST, L., “Layton man gets jail time in Utah ‘revenge porn’ case”, Desert News 17 March 2015, http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865624437/Layton-man-gets-jail-time-in-Utah-revenge-porn-case.html?pg=all dc 25 April 2015.
· WILSON, I., “’Revenge porn’ legal remedies”, The Law Society Gazette 14 July 2014, http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-updates/revenge-porn-legal-remedies/5042142.fullarticle dc 10 April 2015.
· WOLBRECHT, C., The Politics of Women’s Rights – Parties, Positions and Change, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2000, 256.
· WRANGE, P., “Intervention in national and private cyber space and international law”(Presentation for the Panel International Law and Cyberspace – The Fourth Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law) Delhi, 14-16 November 2013, 1 – 18, http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:682092/FULLTEXT02 dc 26 April 2015.
· X, “Child Pornography : Model legislation and global review”, International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, 2013 (7th Edition), 52, http://icmec.org/en_X1/icmec_publications/English__6th_Edition_FINAL_.pdf dc 10 May 2015.
· X, “Revenge Porn Bill Needs Changes”, American Civil Liberties Union Of Connecticut website 26 March 2014, http://www.acluct.org/updates/revenge-porn-bill-needs-changes/ dc 13 April 2015.
· X, “How red or blue is your state?”, The Hill 24 October 2014, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/221721-how-red-or-blue-is-your-state dc 5 July 2015.
· X, “Anonymous Hunts Hunter Moore to Hold Him ‘Accountable’ for His Revenge Porn Empire”, The Observer 20 December 2014, http://observer.com/2012/12/anonymous-hunts-hunter-moore-to-hold-him-accountable-for-his-revenge-porn-empire/ dc 26 April 2015.
· X, “Cassatie: ‘Coach die stiekem naakte meisjes filmde, heeft eerbaarheid niet aangerand”, De Morgen (Online) 9 April 2015, http://www.demorgen.be/binnenland/cassatie-coach-die-stiekem-naakte-meisjes-filmde-heeft-eerbaarheid-niet-aangerand-a2280851/ dc 1 August 2015.
· X, “YouTube-ster Chrissy naar de rechter om wraakporno”, NOS Online 4 June 2015, http://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2039434-youtube-ster-chrissy-naar-de-rechter-om-wraakporno.html dc 1 August 2015.
