HARTFORD, CT – The Judiciary Committee last week voted to advance several bills as the Senate and House sessions get underway, with one bill dominating the debate among the legislators on Thursday.
The bill, Senate Bill 4, addresses several different issues, including “cyberflashing,” or the unsolicited sharing of sexually explicit images. The bill also bans certain actions, such as refusing to hire someone or denying a request for leave, by individuals, employers and labor groups against victims of domestic violence, pregnant women, and other groups. Finally, the bill prohibits the use of certain kinds of nondisclosure agreements relating to workplace lawsuits.
The most controversial aspect of the bill was section 2, which dealt directly with the issue of unsolicited sexual images sent to unwilling recipients. The section lays out the civil penalties for sending “intimate” images, or images which show the genitals of a person 18 years or older. The sender may be found liable for damages and attorney’s fees.
Much of the discussion of the bill centered on considerations of age and body parts. Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, asked several questions about the language of the bill. He asked for clarification of the term “expressly forbidden,” which is found in the bill to mean that the sender can be found liable for damages in civil court after the recipient expressly forbids the sender from sharing intimate images. Fishbein asked if “expressly” conveyed that the request had to be made in writing.
“‘Expressly forbidden’ could apply in a number of different ways. You could send a text message saying, ‘Don’t send me these kinds of things.’ You could send an email. You could have a phone call where you make it clear you don’t want to receive these types of materials,” said Sen. Mae Flexer, D-Windham, who responded to questions on section 2. “You could also be in a large group of people and you say to the offending person, ‘Please don’t send me these things,’ and there are other people who see you make that clear communication.”
“I think that’s one of the problems. 18-year-olds do a lot of bad stuff. And now, [the forbidding of sending intimate images] could have allegedly been conveyed through a phone call or amongst a group of people. It becomes very problematic for a lot of these kids,” Fishbein said.
Rep. Pat Callahan, R-Danbury, expressed similar concerns about the age, stating that he felt the cutoff age should be 21 instead.
“The age of 18 was chosen because frankly the many of the people who are most frequently in receipt of these kinds of communications are younger people, people between the ages of 18-21,” Flexer said. “I think there’s a balance here. I think many of the people who are asking for these kinds of protections to be here in Connecticut are of that age group
Rep. Doug Dubitsky, R-Chaplin, asked if the bill also covered images of breasts being shared. When informed that it didn’t, Dubitsky asked why.
“Because the body part the good representative named is not a genital,” Flexer answered. “The goal of this proposal before us is to address the unsolicited images … that expose a person’s genitals only. That is the concern, to prevent the unsolicited, and what has frankly become for many people, young people in particular, the regular exposure to these kinds of images. There is a constant delivery of these kinds of images that is unsolicited and offensive. So the goal here is to prevent that kind of exposure.”
“I understand there’s a lot of stigma around the breast, and perhaps we could all learn that there’s a difference between that and the genitals,” said Sen. Gary Winfield, D-New Haven.
Rep. Steve Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, expressed his support for the bill while noting some of the issues he hoped would be addressed on the House floor.
“I certainly like sections 1 and 2, and I do think it’s past time that this legislature ban so-called gag orders in settlements of sexual harassment claims, which I think is a primary driver of sections 3 and 4 of this bill,” he said. “I will note that I do have reservations about those sections as currently drafted and the breadth of those. I think there could be some potential legal challenges to this language based on the retroactive nature of it.”
After about an hour of discussion, the bill passed on an 18-8 vote and was sent as a joint favorable substitute to the house floor.
