An Arizona law that won unanimous approval in the state legislature this year could send parents to prison with a felony conviction if they share bathtime baby photos, according to a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday.

State lawmakers passed the law to punish hackers and jilted exes who distribute so-called “revenge porn” - a term for intimate images shared among lovers that are later circulated more broadly, maliciously and without the subject’s consent.

Gov. Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., signed the bill in April and it took effect July 24, despite what the American Civil Liberties Union say are clear constitutional problems - and possible unintended consequences - with the law.

A coalition of local booksellers, publishers and the National Press Photographers Association, represented by ACLU attorneys, alleges the law violates the Constitution’s First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Commerce Clause.

The law is “a content-based restriction on constitutionally protected speech” and is unconstitutionally vague, the lawsuit says, describing alarming hypothetical prosecutions.

The lawsuit says parents who share nude photos of their babies are subject to felony convictions, as are educators who show students the famous “Napalm Girl” photo taken during the Vietnam War. Newspapers that publish images of U.S. troops abusing Iraqi prisoners or former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s lewd Twitter selfies also could be exposed to prosecution, according to the suit. .

Moreover, sharing a link to websites that host such images could yield felony charges, the suit says.

At issue are the new law's allegedly vague prohibitions. The law states:



“It is unlawful to intentionally disclose, display, distribute, publish, advertise, or offer a photograph, videotape, film or digital recording of another person in a state of nudity or engaged in specific sexual activities if the person knows or should have known that the depicted person has not consented to the disclosure.”



Though the law includes exceptions for medical and law enforcement purposes, it does not include exceptions for photos that are newsworthy or artistic, and it does not require that the subject has been harmed.

A rape victim might be guilty of a felony for sharing a nude photo of her rapist with anyone other than police, the lawsuit says. Photos of a Hollywood star's cleavage may meet Arizona's definition of “state of nudity,” the suit says, and an image of a person touching his or her own buttocks may constitute “specific sexual activities.”

The law’s author, Republican state Rep. Javan Mesnard, tells U.S. News existing safeguards, such as prosecutorial discretion and the fact that someone first needs to report alleged infractions, should head off unjustified or questionable prosecutions.

“It would be tragic if the ACLU is successful at using extreme, far-fetched hypothetical scenarios and an distorted interpretation of our freedom of speech to derail a law aimed at solving a very real and growing problem facing many across the country - women in particular,” he says, adding that he’s open to legislation modifying the law.

University of Miami law professor Mary Anne Franks, an anti-revenge porn activist who advises lawmakers on legislation, says she unsuccessfully recommended a public purpose exception in the law.

“While I think the lack of a public purpose exception and broad definitions of nudity do raise constitutional issues, many of the other points in ACLU's suit are hyperbolic and disingenuous,” Franks says.

Franks is working with Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., on a bill that would make sharing revenge porn a federal crime. Critics worry such a law would fundamentally alter the Internet by prompting sites to reflexively remove content.

Thirteen states, including Arizona, passed laws that criminalize revenge porn since 2013, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Wisconsin recently passed a law with exemptions for images taken by parents and photos that are newsworthy or of public importance. Franks, who advised legislators on that bill, says it's a good model for other states.

Lee Rowland, a staff attorney at the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, says the civil liberties group has no plans to target other recently enacted laws.

“Arizona’s law stands out for its broad and imprecise language coupled with extreme felony penalties, and its resulting harms to our plaintiffs’ speech,” Rowland says.