Part 3: A Landmark Lawsuit — How Bailey Broadrick Invoked Federal Law to Fight Revenge Porn Disclaimer: This article is based on the Verified Complaint filed in Broadrick v. Gilroy, Case No. 3:24-cv-01772-VAB (D. Conn.). All facts discussed remain alleged, and the case is still pending. No finding of liability has been made. For years,…
Part 2: The Harassment Machine — How One Man Tried to Destroy Bailey Broadrick Online Disclaimer: The facts described in this article are based on a Verified Complaint filed in the federal case Broadrick v. Gilroy, Case No. 3:24-cv-01772-VAB (D. Conn.). All allegations remain unproven, and the case is pending. The defendant has not been…
Part 1: A Digital Betrayal — The Story of Bailey Broadrick Disclaimer: The facts described in this article are drawn from a Verified Complaint filed in federal court in the case Broadrick v. Gilroy, Case No. 3:24-cv-01772-VAB (D. Conn.). All allegations are currently unproven, and the case remains pending. The defendant has not yet been…
Frivolous Counterclaims in Revenge Porn Cases: A Common Tactic to Re-Traumatize Victims When survivors of nonconsensual pornography bravely step forward to pursue justice under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, they often face more than just legal hurdles. Increasingly, perpetrators respond with baseless counterclaims—usually for defamation—intended not to vindicate any legitimate grievance, but to harass and intimidate…
The “Commercial Pornography” Exception to the Federal Revenge Porn Law Under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, victims of nonconsensual image distribution can file a federal civil lawsuit to hold perpetrators accountable. But not every intimate image qualifies. One important exception in the law involves commercial pornographic content. What Is the Commercial Pornography Exception? The law says…
“I Wasn’t Served!” — A Common Delay Tactic by Revenge Porn Defendants One of the oldest tricks in the book for civil defendants—especially those facing serious consequences—is to claim they were never served with the lawsuit. In cases involving nonconsensual pornography, this tactic is disturbingly common. Perpetrators attempt to avoid accountability by pretending not to…
Part 5: The First Amendment, Appeals, and What Comes Next in Doe v. Gipson This post concludes our in-depth series on Jane Doe v. Mark A. Gipson, a landmark federal revenge porn lawsuit brought under 15 U.S.C. § 6851. Our series began with a breakdown of the first federal appellate ruling under § 6851, followed…
Part 4: Beyond the Verdict — Permanent Injunctions and Final Judgment in a Federal Revenge Porn Case This trial represents the culmination of everything we’ve covered so far in this series. We began by analyzing the first appellate ruling under § 6851, followed with a series introduction, then walked through Doe’s initial complaint, how the…
Part 3: Inside the First Federal Jury Trial Under 15 U.S.C. § 6851 — Justice Delivered In April 2025, a federal jury in the Western District of Texas delivered a powerful message: victims of nonconsensual image abuse can and will obtain justice under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, the federal civil revenge porn statute. In Jane…
Part 2: How the Court Protected Jane Doe — Injunctive Relief, Contempt, and the Power of § 6851 In Part 1 of our series on Jane Doe v. Mark A. Gipson, we explored how this groundbreaking federal lawsuit was the first to reach trial under 15 U.S.C. § 6851, the federal revenge porn statute enacted…