My client was a victim, not internet controversy

Before “revenge porn” became a common phrase, before Indiana enacted a specific statute addressing the distribution of intimate images, I represented a young woman whose ex-boyfriend posted a video of their sexual activity on Is Anyone Up.

The website, operated by Hunter Moore, became notorious for publishing intimate photographs and videos without the consent of the people depicted. The posts were often accompanied by identifying information and links to social-media accounts. The purpose was not journalism. It was humiliation, harassment, attention, and profit.

My client's case became one of the earliest revenge-porn cases I handled.

At the time, I understood the immediate injustice. A former boyfriend had taken something intensely private and exposed it to strangers around the world. I understood the fear, shame, anger, and helplessness that followed.

What I did not fully appreciate yet was the scale of the problem.

This was not simply one angry ex-boyfriend making one terrible decision. It was part of a much larger and interconnected network of individuals, websites, online communities, and businesses profiting from the abuse of victims. The internet allowed people to copy, repost, monetize, threaten, and weaponize private sexual material almost instantly.

My client was not a character in an internet spectacle. She was a real person whose most private moments had been exposed without permission.

That distinction matters.

The damage does not end when the post goes up

People who have never experienced image-based sexual abuse sometimes ask why a victim cannot simply ignore the post. That question reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how this abuse works.

Once an intimate video is posted online, the victim loses control over where it goes next. Someone downloads it. Someone else reposts it. Another person sends it to an employer, family member, school, or partner. Search engines may connect the victim's name to the material. Strangers may send threats or messages. The victim may worry that every new relationship, job opportunity, or social interaction could be destroyed by something shared without consent.

The harm is not theoretical. It can affect a victim's:

• Mental and emotional health;
• Personal relationships;
• Employment and professional reputation;
• Physical safety;
• Housing and education;
• Sense of privacy and control; and
• Willingness to participate in ordinary online life.

That is why I reject the idea that these cases are merely online drama. Calling it “drama” minimizes the conduct and shifts attention away from the person who caused the harm.

The person who distributes an intimate video without consent is responsible for that decision. The victim is not.

Was "Is Anyone Up?" a genuine step in the fight against revenge porn?

In one important sense, yes.

The public exposure surrounding Is Anyone Up forced people to confront what had been dismissed as an internet prank or private relationship dispute. Victims, advocates, journalists, and investigators helped reveal how the site operated and how much damage it caused.

Netflix's documentary series, The Most Hated Man on the Internet, revisits that period through the story of victims and the people who fought back against Moore and his website. The series shows how difficult it was to get meaningful action when the legal system had not yet caught up with technology.

It also shows the limits of that fight.

Holding one notorious operator accountable was important. But shutting down one website did not eliminate the abuse. It did not erase copies of images already distributed. It did not stop former partners, hackers, anonymous posters, and online profiteers from finding new ways to target victims.

The real fight has always been bigger than one website or one headline. It is about accountability at every level: the person who secretly records, the ex-partner who posts the material, the person who threatens to distribute it, and the businesses or platforms that knowingly benefit from the traffic and harassment.

That fight continues today.

Indiana law now gives victims stronger tools

When I handled my client's case, Indiana did not have the same targeted statutory protections that victims have today. Victims and their attorneys often had to rely on a patchwork of computer-crime laws, privacy claims, harassment laws, copyright arguments, and other legal theories.

Those tools were often incomplete. They might address how an image was obtained, but not fully address the harm caused by distributing it. They might provide leverage for removal, but not a clear civil remedy designed specifically for image-based sexual abuse.

Indiana law has evolved.

Distribution of an intimate image: IC 35-45-4-8

Indiana Code § 35-45-4-8 addresses the distribution of an intimate image.

In general terms, the statute applies when a person knows or reasonably should know that the individual depicted does not consent to distribution and then distributes the image. “Distribution” can include transferring the image through a website, application, telecommunications device, network, or other medium.

The statute covers images and videos depicting sexual intercourse, other defined sexual conduct, or the uncovered buttocks, genitals, or female breast. It can also apply to certain computer-generated or digitally modified images that appear to depict the alleged victim.

A first offense is generally a Class A misdemeanor, while a person with a prior unrelated conviction under the statute may face a Level 6 felony.

The point is straightforward: consenting to create or send an intimate image does not mean consenting to have that image published, forwarded, or posted online.

Voyeurism: IC 35-45-4-5

Indiana Code § 35-45-4-5 addresses voyeurism, which may apply when someone secretly observes, records, or transmits images of another person in circumstances where that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The distribution of an intimate image and the creation of that image are not always the same legal issue. If someone secretly records sexual activity or private conduct, voyeurism may be implicated. If that person later posts or sends the recording without consent, Indiana's intimate-image distribution statute may also become relevant.

The precise legal analysis depends on the facts: where the recording occurred, how it was made, who made it, what the parties agreed to, and how the recording was distributed.

Civil remedies: IC 34-21.5-3-1 through IC 34-21.5-3-3

Criminal prosecution is not the only option.

Indiana's civil statutes, including IC 34-21.5-3-1 through IC 34-21.5-3-3, provide a civil framework for victims whose intimate images are disclosed without consent. Depending on the circumstances, a civil case may seek damages, attorney's fees, court costs, and injunctive relief designed to stop further disclosure.

A civil lawsuit can serve a different purpose from a criminal case. Criminal charges are brought by the State. A civil case is brought by the victim and can focus directly on the victim's financial losses, emotional injuries, privacy violations, and the need to stop continuing distribution.

These statutes do not make the internet forget. No law can guarantee that every copy will disappear. But they give victims stronger tools than many victims had when Is Anyone Up was operating.

Victims should also understand that online platforms can raise separate legal issues, including federal protections and immunity arguments. That is one reason these cases require immediate investigation and careful legal strategy: not assumptions.

Image-based sexual abuse still happens to everyday people

The problem did not disappear because Hunter Moore became the subject of a documentary.

This abuse still happens to ordinary people in Indianapolis, throughout Indiana, and across the country. It happens after breakups, during custody disputes, in abusive relationships, and after someone refuses a demand for money or continued contact.

It also happens through fake or manipulated images. Advances in artificial intelligence have made it easier for abusers to create convincing sexual images that appear to depict a real person. The technology changes, but the objective remains the same: humiliation, control, intimidation, and exploitation.

The victim does not need to be famous for the damage to be severe. In fact, most victims are not celebrities. They are students, parents, professionals, and young people trying to live their lives while someone else uses private material as a weapon.

If this has happened to you, do not bargain with the person threatening you. Do not assume the post will disappear on its own. Preserve evidence, including URLs, usernames, messages, dates, and screenshots. Avoid forwarding the material unnecessarily. Then speak with an attorney who understands both the criminal and civil sides of the problem.

This is not your fault. You do not need to face the person who harmed you alone.

My five-battery recommendation

I recommend Netflix's The Most Hated Man on the Internet. It is difficult to watch because the underlying conduct is cruel and the victims' experiences are deeply personal. Viewers should expect graphic, sexual, and sensitive themes.

But the series is important because it puts victims: not just the website operator: at the center of the story. It shows the consequences of treating image-based sexual abuse as entertainment and the determination required to challenge a system that was built to profit from humiliation.

My rating: 🔋🔋🔋🔋🔋 : five batteries.

The documentary is a genuine step in the fight against revenge porn because it helps expose the problem and humanize the people harmed by it. But it is not the end of the fight. It is a reminder that accountability must continue: and that victims still need aggressive advocates willing to investigate every part of what happened.

Victims need a lawyer who will fight

When I represented that early Is Anyone Up victim, the legal landscape was far weaker than it is today. There was no clear, comprehensive roadmap for addressing the full scope of the abuse. Fighting meant taking on a sprawling network that profited from private material being stolen, posted, copied, and circulated.

Today, Indiana victims have more legal tools: but they still need an attorney who will use them aggressively.

At the Law Office of Mark Nicholson, I provide aggressive advocacy, thorough case preparation, and representation for victims of revenge porn and image-based sexual abuse. I work to identify the responsible individuals, preserve critical evidence, pursue available criminal and civil remedies, and seek action to stop further distribution.

My firm is available 24/7 for consultations. My representation has been recognized through honors including Top Attorney and Best Pro in Town. You can learn more about my background here and read what clients have said about my representation in the firm's success stories and testimonials.

If someone exposed your intimate images without permission, you deserve more than sympathy and a promise that the internet will handle itself. You deserve a lawyer prepared to fight.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice. Indiana law can change, and the way these statutes apply depends on the specific facts of each case.