Many educational presentations continue to straightforwardly frame both consensual and nonconsensual intimate image distribution among youth as child pornography. This continues despite the availability of a purpose-built offence for nonconsensual intimate image distribution (NCIID) that was designed, in part, to avoid the use of child pornography offences in NCIID cases and the existence of a “private use exception” that limits the applicability of child pornography offences in cases of consensual “sexting” among youth. This sometimes inaccurate and, I argue, inappropriate focus on child pornography offences is especially common in presentations by police and public safety personnel. Through a discursive analysis of Canadian case law and a case study of educational approaches provided by the CyberScan unit, I find that the continued dominance of a child pornography framing is based on both genuine misconceptions of how these offences apply to intimate image distribution and intentional misrepresentations of the legal context.

In this article I explore judicial interpretations of the relationship between digital technology and non-consensual intimate image distribution (NCIID) (i.e., “revenge porn”). Drawing on my analysis of forty-nine Canadian cases of NCIID, I show that judicial interpretations of digital technology have important influences on how NCIID is understood and responded to in the law. I find that the majority of judges perceive digital technology as making NCIID easier to commit—with the simple “click of a mouse”—and as increasing the amount of harm caused by this act—as digital nude/sexual photos are seen as lasting “forever” and thus as resulting in ongoing and immeasurable harm to victims. These perceptions have substantive impacts on legal rationales and sentencing decisions, with the affordances of digital technology regularly being treated as justifying harsher sentences to denounce and deter this act.