The State’s Arguments for Revenge-Porn Criminalization

1. Revenge porn is not speech.
2. Revenge porn criminalization is not a content-based restriction.
3. “Essentially intolerable invasions of privacy” are a recognized category of historically unprotected speech.
4. Revenge porn falls into some hitherto unrecognized category of historically unprotected speech.
5. Revenge porn criminalization is directed at secondary effects of revenge porn.
6. Revenge porn should be treated like commercial speech, subject to intermediate scrutiny.
7. Revenge porn is very harmful low-value speech, not worthy of full First Amendment protection.

(These are all bad arguments. Explaining why will give me seven easy blog posts. What arguments am I missing?)