The nude Chiarini photo was posted online by her Chiarini’s former long-distance boyfriend. Chiarini states that she was persuaded by her boyfriend to pose nude after he promised no one else would see the photos except for them. According to a Nov. 15 Associated Press report, she trusted her boyfriend when he assured her that the photos would be stored on a compact disc and hidden in his drawer.
However, to her shock and horror, once the couple broke up, the CD containing the nude Chiarini photos was auctioned on eBay. To make matters worse, a link with a nude Chiarini photo was emailed to her close friends and family. Copies were also mailed to her son’s Catholic school kindergarten teacher and to supervisors at the college where she worked. Furthermore, the images ended up on a porn site and they garnered thousands of views.
Regarding the nude Chiarini photo, the 42-year-old single mom told media outlets. “I was horrified. The night he said he was going to do it, I called the police in an absolute panic and tried to explain what was going on. I said, ‘He’s threatening to put these pictures of me on an eBay auction,’ and they (said), ‘So?’
The police told Chiarini that they were was nothing they could do about the incident and they explained to her that so-called “revenge porn” is legal in every state except Calif. and New Jersey.
Shortly after this revelation, Chiarini vowed that she would fight for new legislation that protects victims of online harassment and revenge porn. In February 2012, she testified before the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland General Assembly in support of Senate Bills (SB) 107 and 175. SB 175 was passed into law in April 2012. The legislation now provides victims with stronger prosecuting ability, The HuffPost wrote. In 2014 Chiarini will again stand before the judicial committee and fight for legislation that will make non-consensual pornography a crime.
Although the nude Chiarini photo incident sparked the passing of legislature that will support victims of similar acts, some agencies are not so supportive of the issue.
“We generally don’t think that finding more ways to put people in prison for speech is a good thing,” said Adi Kamdar, an activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A lot of times, these laws — if they aren’t narrowly focused enough — they can be interpreted too broadly.”
