Policy director urges Senate Judiciary to pass H.626 to expand remedies for image-based abuse

Carly Glitherman, policy director of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and ****** Violence, told the Senate Judiciary on March 24 that H.626 is designed to update Vermont law for the digital era by expanding civil and criminal responses to image-based abuse.

"When an image is shared online, it can spread instantly and be nearly impossible to remove," Glitherman said, urging the committee to consider stronger remedies and penalties for survivors. She described three categories the bill would address: voyeurism (secret recording or viewing in private settings), nonconsensual disclosure of explicit images (including altered or AI-generated pictures) and sextortion (threatening to disclose images to force compliance).

Glitherman said the bill reinforces civil remedies for victims of voyeurism and nonconsensual disclosure, clarifies that a diagnosis of a trauma-related disorder such as PTSD can satisfy the "actual injury" requirement in civil suits, and would extend criminal statutes of limitations for voyeurism, nonconsensual disclosure and sextortion to 40 years so victims who discover images long after disclosure retain a path to prosecution.

"Survivors face a chronic sense of threat that their abuse will continue no matter what they do because an image will remain accessible," she said, citing research that victims of image-based abuse experience higher rates of depression and post-traumatic stress.

Jim McManus, who spoke for the Department of State's Attorney office and introduced Ben Shirts of that office as present, said prosecutors support reorganizing the voyeurism statute to distinguish viewing (which carries a higher penalty) from recording or photographing and described the bill's sextortion provision as creating a distinct offense that requires proof of an active threat or compulsion to act.

"The disclosure of these images creates a digital stain, almost impossible to fully erase," McManus said, describing how the bill clarifies prosecutorial elements and raises penalties in certain sections.

Committee members asked technical questions about statutory language and proof standards. In particular, members pressed for clarification of what makes an image show an "identifiable person." McManus explained that identification can rest on features beyond a visible face'for example, a distinctive tattoo or other corroborating evidence can make an image identifiable to people who know the victim. He cautioned that whether a background (such as a room) suffices to identify a person depends on the facts and would be subject to argument in particular cases.

Members also questioned whether the statute of limitations should run from a victim's discovery rather than use a long fixed period; Glitherman said the discovery-trigger approach had been considered but that Vermont has few criminal statutes that start at discovery and the bill sponsors considered a long fixed period clearer to apply.

Glitherman asked the committee to hear live testimony from a survivor who has been deeply affected by image-based abuse; the chair asked her to provide contact information to staff for scheduling. McManus acknowledged remaining questions about strict liability and immunity clauses and offered to return for further testimony.

The committee agreed to pause further action and adjourn at noon to allow time for follow-up and additional testimony rather than rush technical queries.