The Texas nonconsensual pornography statute (chapter 98B of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code) provides:
A defendant is liable … to a person depicted in intimate visual material for damages arising from the disclosure of the material if:
(1) the defendant discloses the intimate visual material without the effective consent of the depicted person and with the intent to harm that person;
(2) at the time of the disclosure, the defendant knows or has reason to believe that the intimate visual material was obtained by the defendant or created under circumstances in which the depicted person had a reasonable expectation that the material would remain private;
(3) the disclosure of the intimate visual material causes harm to the depicted person; and
(4) the disclosure of the intimate visual material reveals the identity of the depicted person in any manner ….
{"Intimate visual material" means visual material that depicts a person: (A) with the person's intimate parts exposed; or (B) engaged in sexual conduct.}
{This chapter shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purpose to protect persons from, and provide adequate remedies to victims of, the disclosure or promotion of intimate visual material.}
The statute provides for damages liability and an injunction, and it has no exception for disclosure of such material in court; but the Texas Court of Appeals (San Antonio) held Wednesday (in Doe v. Cruz, written by Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, joined by Justices Luz Elena D. Chapa and Beth Watkins) that the general Texas judicial-proceedings privilege applies to the statute. (The logic of the opinion suggests that similar privilege rules would apply to similar conduct, such as disclosing the material to the police and the like.) From the opinion:
