When an Illinois woman named Bethany Austin discovered that her fiancée Matthew Rychlik was having an affair with their neighbor, she was understandably hurt. So she sent friends and family a four-page letter outlining what had happened. The treatise contained text and photo messages sent between Rychlik and his side chick, Elizabeth Dreher, including nudes.

Now, to be fair, this letter was sent after Rychlik angled to soften the reasons behind his and Austin’s breakup. He wanted to tell people it was a mutual decision. She wanted to tell them the truth.

When Austin wouldn’t agree to his plan to break the news in his favor, Rychlik proceeded to spread rumors about his “crazy” fiancée and announced he was “sleeping at another girl’s house” because his would-be wife “never cooks or does house chores.”

So Austin sent the letter — and she didn’t have to do anything tricky to get the documentation contained therein. She had access to all of Rychlik’s and Dreher’s conversations and photos, you see, because she and her ex-fiancée shared an iCloud account. Austin fully admits to sending the letter, and the lovas admit they knew Austin had access to their correspondence.

Smdh.

Austin was then arrested and charged with felony “nonconsensual dissemination of private sexual images” – what the world refers to as “revenge porn” but has nothing to do with actual adult content. People have been fighting for some time now to get laws on the books regarding this type of harassment and abuse. As of now, forty-five states (including Illinois) have “revenge porn” laws in place. In this particular case though, there’s a twist.

According to the DailyHerald.com, in a motion filed in March at the Supreme Court of Illinois, Austin challenged the “revenge porn” law itself, calling it unconstitutional. Court documents state that, regardless of her status as a “scorned woman,” Austin argued that she was exercising her freedom of speech.

Via the DailyHerald, the Constitution protects freedom of speech, even when said speech is “offensive or disagreeable.” If a restriction is imposed on a specific statement or image, it must satisfy the strictest level of legal scrutiny, serve a “compelling government interest” and be as minimal as possible. Consequently, there are very few types of speech that are not protected: threats, obscenity, speech intended to incite violence and the public disclosure of private information.

Carrie Goldberg, owner of victims’ rights law firm C.A. Goldberg, PLLC, doesn’t give the impression that she thinks Austin’s challenge will hold.

“Consider all the criminal laws that relate to sharing health care and financial information without consent,” Goldberg said via the DailyHerald. “Revenge porn” laws are essentially privacy laws that passed because the government has a “compelling interest in protecting the privacy, safety, and health of its citizens,” she continued.

Mary Anne Franks, president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, explained via the DailyHerald that some states limit “revenge porn” to situations in which the perpetrator acts with the intent to harm or harass their target. Was this Austin’s intention? Or, was her intention to provide evidence for her side of a personal story that was being purposefully misrepresented?

It will be interesting to see what course Austin’s challenge takes, if any.

Photo by Gratisography via Pexels.