Revenge Porn Lawyer Washington DC

“Revenge porn” is not the name of any District offense. The phrase describes a supposed motive that the D.C. Code does not use, and a person who searches for it will find instead a chapter organized around different acts: disclosing a sexual image and publishing one. That distinction is not cosmetic. Under D.C. Code § 22-3052, unlawful disclosure is a misdemeanor carrying a fine, up to 180 days, or both. Under D.C. Code § 22-3053, first-degree unlawful publication is a felony carrying a fine, up to 3 years, or both. The same photograph, the same complainant, and the same relationship can produce either charge depending on what the government says was done with the image. Both sections were amended by D.C. Law 25-175, effective June 8, 2024. Both are also built on an intent element that the government has to prove and that a defense can contest. Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., is a former prosecutor, and the firm has defended criminal allegations since 1997. This page sets out where the line between disclosure and publication falls and what the intent element requires. Request a consultation. The firm maintains 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747.

Unlawful Disclosure and Unlawful Publication Under Chapter 30A

The District’s non-consensual pornography chapter is Chapter 30A, running from D.C. Code § 22-3051 through § 22-3057. Section 22-3051 supplies definitions, § 22-3052 covers unlawful disclosure, § 22-3053 covers first-degree unlawful publication, § 22-3054 covers second degree unlawful publication, § 22-3055 sets out exclusions, § 22-3056 sets out affirmative defenses, and § 22-3057 addresses jurisdiction. Nothing in the chapter is titled revenge porn, and a charging document cites a section rather than that phrase.

D.C. Code § 22-3052 reaches knowingly disclosing one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person where that person did not consent, where the discloser knew of or consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person did not consent, and where the disclosure was made with intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain. The section is a misdemeanor carrying a fine, up to 180 days, or both.

D.C. Code § 22-3053 reaches knowingly publishing one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person on the same consent and intent elements, and it applies whether the image was obtained from that person or from a third party or other source. The section is a felony carrying a fine, up to 3 years, or both. The difference between the sections is the act charged: disclosure in one, publication in the other. Both were amended by D.C. Law 25-175, effective June 8, 2024.

The intent element does the heaviest work in most of these cases. A disclosure or a publication is not enough by itself; the statute requires that it have been made with intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain. That is a state-of-mind question, and it is contested alongside the consent element and the discloser’s knowledge or conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of non-consent. The chapter also contains exclusions at D.C. Code § 22-3055 and affirmative defenses at D.C. Code § 22-3056, both of which belong in the analysis from the beginning rather than as fallback positions, and a jurisdiction provision at D.C. Code § 22-3057.

How Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys Handle These Cases

The first thing the firm settles is which act the government says occurred. A charge under D.C. Code § 22-3052 rests on a disclosure and carries misdemeanor exposure of a fine, up to 180 days, or both. A charge under D.C. Code § 22-3053 rests on a publication and carries felony exposure of a fine, up to 3 years, or both. Where a charging document is imprecise about which act is alleged, that imprecision is addressed before anything else, because the answer sets the exposure and the shape of the defense.

From there the elements are taken one at a time. Whether the person depicted is identified or identifiable is an element, not a given. Whether that person consented is an element. Whether the client knew of or consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the person did not consent is a separate element with its own proof requirements. Whether the act was done with intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain is the element that most often decides whether a case is a chapter offense at all rather than a private dispute the code does not reach.

The exclusions at D.C. Code § 22-3055 and the affirmative defenses at D.C. Code § 22-3056 are read against the facts as part of that same pass, and the jurisdiction provision at D.C. Code § 22-3057 is checked where the conduct crossed District lines. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys explain which element the case turns on and why, and they keep the client informed as the government’s position develops. The firm does not predict outcomes. Request a consultation.

About Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys

Mr. Sris is the Owner and Founder of the firm, which was founded in 1997. He is a former prosecutor, which means he has read these charging decisions from the side that has to prove each element before it files. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. He concentrates in criminal defense, and Chapter 30A allegations fall within that practice.

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys handle these matters. The Of Counsel attorneys contract directly with the firm, and a matter is assigned internally according to what it requires. A client is told who is working on the file and how to reach the people handling it. Individual attorney names are not listed on this page.

Chapter 30A cases often begin with a complainant’s account and a set of messages, and they are decided on elements rather than on how the conduct is described in conversation. The firm’s role is to hold the government to the text of the section charged, including the consent element, the knowledge or conscious disregard element, and the intent element. Consultations are held by appointment at the firm’s locations, and the firm maintains 24/7 phone intake at (888) 437-7747. Request a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is “revenge porn” the name of a District offense?

It is not. The District’s chapter is titled around non-consensual pornography and is organized by act rather than by motive. Chapter 30A runs from D.C. Code § 22-3051 through § 22-3057, and the offense sections are unlawful disclosure at § 22-3052, first-degree unlawful publication at § 22-3053, and second degree unlawful publication at § 22-3054. The remaining sections supply definitions, exclusions, affirmative defenses, and jurisdiction. If you are looking at a charging document, the phrase you will find is the statutory one, and the section number tells you far more about the exposure than the label does.

What is the difference between unlawful disclosure and unlawful publication?

The act. D.C. Code § 22-3052 addresses knowingly disclosing one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person, and it is a misdemeanor carrying a fine, up to 180 days, or both. D.C. Code § 22-3053 addresses knowingly publishing one or more such images, and it is a felony carrying a fine, up to 3 years, or both. The consent and intent elements are the same across the two sections. That is why the act alleged, rather than the images or the relationship between the parties, is what separates a misdemeanor exposure from a felony exposure.

What does the intent element require?

Both D.C. Code § 22-3052 and D.C. Code § 22-3053 require that the disclosure or publication was made with intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain. That is a specific intent written into the statute, and it is not satisfied merely by showing that an image was sent or posted. The sections also require that the person depicted did not consent and that the discloser knew of or consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of non-consent. Each of those is a separate thing the government must establish, and each is a place where a defense can be developed.

Does it matter where the image came from?

For the publication section, the statute answers that directly. D.C. Code § 22-3053 applies whether the image was obtained from the person depicted, from a third party, or from another source. Receiving an image from someone else therefore does not remove the conduct from the section by itself. What still has to be proven are the consent element, the knowledge or conscious disregard element, and the intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain. The source of the image can nonetheless be relevant evidence on those questions, which is why it is developed rather than ignored.

The person agreed to the image being taken. Does that decide consent?

The sections are written around consent to the disclosure or the publication, and D.C. Code § 22-3053 makes clear that the section applies whether the image was obtained from the person depicted or from a third party or other source. Reading those together, how an image came to exist does not by its terms answer the statutory consent question. The government must still address the person’s consent and what the discloser knew or consciously disregarded about a substantial and unjustifiable risk of non-consent. The exclusions at D.C. Code § 22-3055 and the affirmative defenses at D.C. Code § 22-3056 are examined in the same analysis.

Related Pages

• Sextortion Lawyer Washington DC
• Sexting Charges Lawyer Washington DC
• Sex Crime Expungement Lawyer Washington DC
• Sex Crime Investigation Lawyer Washington DC

This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.