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 by our series introduction. We then explored:

• Part 1: Federal Complaint and Background
• Part 2: Emergency Injunctive Relief
• Part 3: The Jury Verdict
• Part 4: Post-Trial Motions and the First Amendment

Now, we turn to the road ahead—including potential appeals and the practical challenges survivors face when enforcing a civil judgment.

Gipson’s First Amendment Argument

After a federal jury awarded Jane Doe $2.3 million in damages for nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, Gipson fought back. He argued that his conduct—publishing explicit content of Doe—was protected under the First Amendment as artistic expression.

In post-trial briefs, Gipson claimed to be a “fine art photographer” producing a project he titled the “Stop Asian Hate Collection.” He argued the content was consensual, that Doe voluntarily posed, and that the lawsuit imposed an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. He even labeled the federal and state revenge porn laws “unconstitutional as applied.”

The court rejected these arguments. As emphasized in its ruling, the First Amendment does not protect nonconsensual pornography—especially when the intent is to humiliate, intimidate, or control. However, Gipson’s filings clearly signal a potential appeal.

Will Gipson Appeal the Verdict?

All signs point to yes. Gipson’s legal team previewed an appeal in post-trial motions, and he filed a pro se motion for a new trial citing alleged juror bias and procedural flaws. Although the trial court found those arguments meritless, they lay the groundwork for further litigation.

If appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the court could again weigh the constitutionality of § 6851. The central question: Can federal courts permanently enjoin someone from publishing so-called “art” when those images violate another person’s right to privacy?

Why the First Amendment Claim Falls Short

Claims of “free speech” are frequently raised in revenge porn cases—but rarely succeed. Courts across the country have consistently ruled that the malicious, targeted distribution of intimate images is not constitutionally protected.

In Doe’s case, the jury heard evidence that Gipson:

• Created websites to host and spread her images
• Promoted the content across social media
• Impersonated her online
• Ignored multiple cease-and-desist letters

This wasn’t about political commentary or public discourse. It was digital abuse, plain and simple. The First Amendment doesn’t protect using someone’s naked body to punish or control them.

Enforcement: The Forgotten Battle

Even with a clear legal win, Doe’s fight may not be over. Enforcing a money judgment—especially against a hostile or evasive defendant—is often difficult. Judgment debtors may hide assets, change names, or even leave the country to avoid paying damages.

Survivors who win at trial may still struggle to collect their judgment without expensive, drawn-out post-judgment discovery and enforcement actions. In some cases, a defendant may never pay—forcing survivors to weigh the emotional and financial cost of continued legal action.

What Happens Next in Doe v. Gipson

If Gipson files a formal appeal, the Fifth Circuit could issue the first ruling on whether § 6851 violates the First Amendment “as applied.” That would shape how courts across the country handle future claims involving revenge porn, privacy rights, and the boundaries of free expression.

The broader legal landscape is still evolving, especially as AI-generated deepfakes and synthetic pornography present new challenges. Courts will need to continue balancing digital speech with privacy protections in the years to come.

Justice Is Possible—But Not Always Easy

Jane Doe’s case proves that federal civil revenge porn laws can deliver justice. She obtained emergency relief, won a jury verdict, and overcame post-trial challenges. But her experience also reveals the persistence and legal sophistication required to succeed—and to enforce a judgment after winning.

If you’re a victim of nonconsensual pornography, you are not powerless. You have legal rights. You may be entitled to damages, injunctions, and attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 6851.

Need help? Contact our legal team today at info@revengepornvictims.com or visit RevengePornVictims.com.