Marjorie Taylor Greene: Lawbreaker Or Law-Abiding?

Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has been at the centre of several controversies, including the question of whether she broke the law. One of the most notable instances was during a congressional hearing when she showed partially censored nude photographs of Hunter Biden to witnesses and members of the House Oversight Committee. This led to a backlash on social media, with many asking if Greene had broken laws governing the publication of pornography, specifically revenge porn laws. However, Greene is protected under the Speech or Debate Clause, which grants members of Congress immunity from liability. Greene has also been criticised for her incendiary statements and promotion of conspiracy theories, including QAnon, Pizzagate, and white supremacist views. She has also been fined multiple times for not wearing a mask on the House floor and has been removed from her committee assignments due to her controversial statements.

Did Marjorie Taylor Greene break revenge porn laws?

In July 2023, Georgia Republican Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene showed partially censored nude photographs of Hunter Biden to witnesses and members of the House Oversight Committee. The images were accompanied by a large graphic that read: "Hunter recorded multiple sex tapes with a sex worker he had paid for out of his law firm's bank account."

In the backlash that followed, social media users began to question whether Greene had broken laws governing the publication of pornography, specifically revenge porn laws.

According to the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, a campaign and support group that fights revenge porn practices, "nonconsensual pornography" is defined as the distribution of "sexually graphic images of individuals without their consent."

D.C. Code, § 22–3054, which was quoted on Twitter in the wake of the hearing, makes it:

> unlawful in the District of Columbia for a person to knowingly publish one or more sexual images of another identified or identifiable person obtained from a third party or other source.

There are two conditions that would constitute a violation of this statute: when the person depicted did not consent to disclosure or publication, and when the person who published the image showed "conscious disregard" for how the image was obtained in a previous disclosure or publication where there was "an intent to harm the person depicted or to receive financial gain."

Newsweek spoke to several leading experts in nonconsensual pornography and pornography laws, including D.C. criminal defense lawyer Jamison Koehler and Dr. Mary Anne Franks, president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Both suggested that Greene's actions would violate the terms of the statute. Koehler added that because the publication occurred in the District of Columbia, D.C. courts would have jurisdiction to hear the case.

However, there are constitutional protections afforded to Greene under the Speech or Debate Clause, which gives members of Congress immunity from liability for conduct that would otherwise be deemed unlawful outside of legislative contexts.

Dr. John Vile, professor of political science at Middle Tennessee State University, argued that the images Greene showed would not qualify as pornography unless they met the three-part Miller Test, which sets standards for determining whether expression constitutes obscenity.

Despite the fact that Greene's actions appear to have violated revenge porn laws, she is likely protected from prosecution under the Speech or Debate Clause and potentially the Miller Test for obscenity.

Following the hearing, Greene sent a newsletter that contained a Twitter link to a video of the hearing, which included the images she had shown. This raised further questions about whether this separate action may have exposed her to other litigation.

Dr. Mary Anne Franks stated that the forwarding of the tweet would fall outside the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause and could potentially attract liability under new nonconsensual pornography civil law, passed as an amendment to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 2022. This law established a federal civil cause of action "for individuals whose intimate visual images are disclosed without their consent, allowing a victim to recover damages and legal fees."

However, there is an exception for disclosures made relating to "a matter of public concern or public interest." It is difficult to predict how this would play out, as the law is very new and has not yet been tested.

In conclusion, while Greene's actions appear to have violated revenge porn laws, she is likely protected from prosecution under the Speech or Debate Clause and potentially public interest grounds. The prospect of successful litigation against her seems thin.

Did she violate the Speech or Debate Clause?

The Speech or Debate Clause gives members of the US Congress immunity from liability for their legislative activities. It protects members from the executive and judicial branches, and ensures they cannot be questioned outside of Congress about their legislative actions.

In 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican member of the US House of Representatives, showed partially censored nude photographs of Hunter Biden (President Joe Biden's son) to members of the House Oversight Committee. The images were purportedly taken from Hunter Biden's laptop.

Greene's actions sparked accusations that she had broken revenge porn laws. However, legal experts argued that she was protected from prosecution by the Speech or Debate Clause. Dr. Mary Anne Franks, president of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, said it was "fairly certain" that Greene was "immunized under the Speech or Debate clause". This view was echoed by Dr. John Vile, professor of political science at Middle Tennessee State University, who said that "however distasteful and disrespectful the posting might be, Greene is almost certainly protected under the Speech and Debate Clause".

However, some argued that Greene may have exposed herself to litigation by sending a newsletter after the hearing that contained a Twitter link to a video of the hearing, which included the images she showed. Franks said that this action fell outside the protection of the Speech or Debate Clause and could potentially attract liability under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Did she violate the Miller Test for obscenity?

The Miller Test, which was established following the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Miller v. California, sets standards for determining whether expression constitutes obscenity. The test has three rules:

• Whether an "average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest".
• Whether the material depicts or describes in "a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law".
• Whether the material, "taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value".

Dr. John Vile, a professor of political science at Middle Tennessee State University, argued that the images of Hunter Biden shared by Marjorie Taylor Greene would not qualify as pornography unless they met the three-part Miller Test. He added that Greene is "almost certainly protected under the Speech and Debate Clause".

Did she violate state law on homestead exemptions?

In May 2021, Marjorie Taylor Greene was reported to have broken Georgia state law by claiming homestead exemptions on two properties. A "homestead exemption" is a legal provision that shields a primary residence from certain creditors following the death of a homeowner's spouse or the declaration of bankruptcy, and it also minimises property taxes for homeowners.

In the US, an individual can only claim a homestead exemption on their primary residence, and only one exemption may be claimed. Greene claimed exemptions on two properties: an older home, and a property she purchased in Georgia's 14th congressional district when she ran for office. Greene responded that the issue was "paperwork, which is being taken care of".

Did she violate McCain-Feingold campaign finance provisions?

In May 2021, Common Cause filed an FEC complaint against Greene for allegedly violating McCain-Feingold campaign finance provisions. The complaint accused Greene of "implicitly" unlawfully soliciting unlimited contributions in an advertisement appearance made on behalf of a super PAC that targeted Senators Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff.

In the ad, Greene calls on viewers to "fight back now, before it's too late", before a separate voice-over asks them to contribute to the PAC. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act, amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns.

The Act prohibits national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion. It also defines broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus, or 60 days of a general election, as "electioneering communications", and prohibits any such ad paid for by a corporation or unincorporated entity using any corporate or union general treasury funds.

The complaint against Greene suggests that her appearance in the ad implicitly solicited unlimited contributions, which would be in violation of the McCain-Feingold Act. However, it is important to note that the final decision on whether Greene violated the Act rests with the relevant authorities.

Frequently asked questions