In less than a decade, nearly every state has outlawed ‘revenge porn.’ So why hasn’t Massachusetts?

Governor Charlie Baker pressed for the Legislature to pass a law against "revenge porn" in his State of the Commonwealth speech last month.Barry Chin/Globe Staff

Sandy said she only learned her ex-boyfriend had taken lewd photos of her when she saw them online one day in 2017.

In the images, she is unconscious, but her name, hometown, and Facebook photo accompanied them, she said, making it easy to identify her. She said she found that visitors on the website had already commented on and rated them, racking up 30,000 views at one point. A message promised videos were “coming soon.”

“He just wanted to destroy me,” said Sandy, who asked to be identified only by her first name. Even five years later, she said, she’s yet to visit her local supermarket in Central Massachusetts, fearful of being recognized through the photos alone.

Nonconsensual pornography, or “revenge porn,” has proliferated with smart devices and social media, sparking lawsuits, research, and of late, a rush of legislation. In less than a decade, dozens of states passed laws making it illegal for ex-partners and others to disseminate sexually explicit images of another person without their consent.

That is, except in Massachusetts.

The state remains one of just two in the country — South Carolina being the other — that hasn’t specifically outlawed the practice. It’s a fact that Governor Charlie Baker wielded in his State of the Commonwealth address last month to prod lawmakers to act on a proposal to address revenge porn, versions of which he’s filed three times since 2017.

The televised speech gave the issue a new platform in Massachusetts, and to survivors, hope that a bill will finally emerge in the Democratic-led House and Senate, neither of which have ever taken a vote on such a proposal.

“Nobody in the Legislature can hide behind, ‘I didn’t know anything about it,’ ” Baker, a second-term Republican, said in an interview. “It’s now on people’s radar.”

But a lack of attention may not be the only obstacle. Legislative leaders have questioned whether adding the felony penalties that Baker is proposing is necessary, arguing that existing laws forbidding criminal harassment can address it. Some advocates say their priority is to push for new civil remedies a survivor can pursue, not simply to add a criminal statute.

Still, the lack of action has put a Democratic-dominated Legislature that frequently touts itself as a trailblazer on laws that protect victims in an uncomfortable position.

“I always see [lawmakers say], ‘We’re the pioneers, we did it first, we did it best.’ Then you look at a situation like this, and you wonder, why didn’t it receive more attention?” said state Representative Alan Silvia, a Fall River Democrat who, separate from Baker, has also filed bills in recent years seeking to criminalize revenge porn. “We missed the boat.”

Baker argues that Massachusetts has a loophole other states have already sought to address. State statute, he said, currently doesn’t prohibit someone from taking a photo or video that they may have lawfully gotten from a romantic partner when they were together and later posting it online or disseminating it without their consent.

His bill seeks to make it a felony, with penalties of up to five years in state prison or a $10,000 fine for those convicted of posting sexually explicit photos either with the intent to harass or intimidate another person, or with “reckless disregard” that it could harm them.

“When it’s a kind of abuse like this, which can ruin a person’s life, which can drive people to suicide and completely destroy someone’s reputation, you have to focus on deterrents,” said Mary Anne Franks, a University of Miami law professor and president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, who drafted the first model criminal statute on nonconsensual pornography.

In 2013, just three states had revenge porn laws on the books. Now, 48 states do, plus Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam, in some cases passing laws amid opposition from Hollywood film studios or lobbying by tech companies — and creating statutes that later withstood First Amendment challenges. “It says something about the state’s priorities,” Franks said of not outlawing it. “I think it’s an indictment of the Massachusetts Legislature.”

Legislative leaders say they’re sensitive to survivors’ experiences, and House Speaker Ronald Mariano in a statement called revenge porn a “grievous crime.” But lawmakers indicated they’re still weighing whether existing law may be enough to address it.

State Representative Michael S. Day, co-chairman of the judiciary committee, which is considering Baker’s proposal, said the state’s voyeurism law bans, for example, secretly photographing under a woman’s clothing, and prosecutors can use a misdemeanor criminal harassment statute to address potential cases of revenge porn. The committee, he said, views the debate as one over whether prosecutors need a “heightened penalty.”

“You always need to be careful when you’re adding criminal penalties to our code,” said Day, a Stoneham Democrat. “I don’t know that we are an outlier [on addressing revenge porn].”

But Northwestern District Attorney David E. Sullivan, who backs Baker’s bill, said the state’s current criminal laws don’t reach far enough. For one, the state’s criminal harassment statute covers those who engage in a “knowing pattern of conduct or series of acts.”

“This,” he said of revenge porn, “can be just one incident — one push of a button.”

Jane Doe, Inc., an advocacy group that works against domestic violence and sexual assault, has separately advocated for creating a “civil legal remedy” for victims of revenge porn, by allowing them to seek a harassment protection or restraining order. That, she said, would allow survivors to be “in control of the process more so than a criminal case.”

“As a coalition, we look at things in holistic ways,” said Hema Sarang-Sieminski, the coalition’s policy director. “This is not a fix that will be made through criminalization. It’s a culture shift around recognizing the harm of this.”

Similar concerns have helped link the debate over revenge porn to separate but related proposals that Baker and state Representative Jeffrey N. Roy, a Franklin Democrat, have pushed to address teen “sexting,” or the sharing of sexual images or videos through phones, apps, and other ways. Those bills would carve out the option for prosecutors to send teenagers who exchange explicit pictures with one another to an educational diversion program, rather than arraigning them on charges.

The proposals are an attempt, proponents say, to avoid bringing the brunt of the law on young teens who may not appreciate the impact of what they’ve done.

“When we’re dealing with images of minors, it creates a whole host of other issues,” Roy said.

It’s one S.K. fully understands. As a high school freshman 15 years ago, she said she was persuaded by a “handsome, boisterous, and popular” upperclassman to send him naked pictures of herself, with the belief that no one else would see them.

S.K., who asked not to be identified by name, said she later met him in person, where he taunted her with the photos, and raped her. Then, after he learned she had disclosed what happened to a friend, he sent the photos to a handful of friends — who then sent them to “everyone they knew,” she said.

Before long, they had been printed and circulated around her school, where she said she was pelted with insults and condoms.

At the time, she said, the district attorney’s office told her it was her, not him, who could be charged with the dissemination of child pornography — underscoring to her then, and now as an adult, the need to change the language for how teens could be treated under the law.

But she said that shouldn’t stop lawmakers from also addressing those who spread photos of someone else maliciously.

“Because Massachusetts is so progressive, we are optimistic that people will change. But there still needs to be laws to keep children safe — and women safe,” S.K. said.

“How many more cases and how many more people need to be embarrassed before enough is enough?” she said. “When is Massachusetts going to change and get up with the times?”