"Revenge porn" is a term that has developed over the last few years to refer to the posting of nude images without the consent of those in the pictures. After a spate of publicity surrounding some of the bad actors in this business, several states have passed laws outlawing "revenge porn" and applying penalties.

Now, a coalition of businesses and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed a lawsuit (PDF) challenging the anti-revenge-porn laws. They've picked Arizona as their battleground. One of the lead lawyers on the case, Michael Bamberger, told the National Law Journal that Arizona's law is "probably the most egregious," because it has no requirement that the images even be malicious, and an exemption for images taken in a "commercial or public setting" is vague.

"This is a supposed revenge-porn statute that does not require revenge," said Bamberger.

The plaintiffs-in-suit are several bookstores, as well as the American Association of Publishers and the National Press Photographers Association. Bamberger, a First Amendment specialist who's working together with the American Civil Liberties Union in this case, added that librarians are concerned they could be held liable simply for providing Internet access.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs list several examples of actions they believe could be criminalized under the new law:

A college professor in Arizona, giving a lecture on the history of the Vietnam War, projects on a screen the iconic Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph, “Napalm Girl,” which shows a girl, unclothed, running in horror from her village.

A newspaper and magazine vendor in Arizona offers to sell a magazine which contains images of the abuse of unclothed prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

An educator in Arizona uses images, taken from the Internet, of breast-feeding mothers, in an education program for pregnant women.

A bookseller in Arizona offers for sale the books, Edward Weston: 125 Photographs (Ammo Books 2011) or Imogen Cunningham: On the Body (Bulfinch 1998), each of which contains nude images.

A librarian in Arizona includes, in the library’s collection, the book Robert Mapplethorpe and the Classical Tradition: Photographs and Mannerist Prints (Guggenheim Museum Publications 2004), which contains nude images.

A library in Arizona provides computers with Internet access to its patrons and, because no filters could effectively prevent this result, the library patrons are able to access nude or sexual images.

A mother in Arizona shares with her sister, in the privacy of her home, a nude image of her infant child.

A sexual assault victim in Arizona shows a photograph of the naked assaulter to her mother.

The plaintiffs' lawyers point out that bookstores that sell books that include nude images often don't, and can't, know whether the subjects consented or not. In some cases, (like the Napalm Girl photo) the subject in all likelihood did not consent.

The bookstores are seeking a judicial declaration that the law is unconstitutional.

"To obtain a conviction under the Act, a prosecutor need not prove that any person was harmed by the disclosure," point out the plaintiffs' lawyers. "Nor must a prosecutor prove that the person depicted was either recognizable or had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image."