( CNN ) The fight against `` revenge porn '' chalked up a small victory recently . So why am I not celebrating ? The Federal Trade Commission released a statement saying it had barred Craig Brittain , a Colorado man , from posting nude images of women to his website without their written consent . We are by now familiar with the concept of what 's broadly known as `` revenge porn , '' that is , posting explicit images online of people -- women , mostly -- without their knowledge or permission . The practice has swept up celebrities such as Scarlett Johansson , Rihanna and Jennifer Lawrence , putting the issue on the national radar . Sometimes the images are stolen by hackers able to access phones , computers or clouds ; in other cases , they may have , at one time , been willingly shared with a romantic partner who , after the relationship ends , seeks to enact `` revenge '' by making those private images public . The FTC 's move is a positive step toward punishing these acts , mostly because it symbolizes that the federal government recognizes the seriousness of the violation . But it does n't go far enough . Brittain was ordered to destroy the images he had in hand -- and that 's it . He was n't fined or sent to jail . That 's because revenge porn is n't a federal crime -- Brittain was found in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act , not in violation of criminal law . As an agency of the U.S. government , the FTC can enforce federal laws but does not have the power to prosecute criminal cases on its own , instead referring cases to the FBI or a U.S. attorney 's office . But because revenge porn is n't a federal crime , the punishments federal law enforcement can place on perpetrators are limited . And so the guy loses his pictures and has been told not to do it again . So what . Currently , 16 states have laws addressing revenge porn , though some are broader than others . Prosecution often still depends on first determining who uploaded the photos -- many of these sites allow for anonymous postings -- and where the photo originated . If the photo was uploaded by a third party , the website may be protected from liability by the Communications Decency Act , the same federal law that protects news outlets from being held liable for online comments made by readers and other user-generated material . A more effective law would be one that aims to protect personal information shared within the context of a confidential relationship and limits free speech to cover information that does not exploit the privacy of another private individual . ( New Jersey 's law , gets at this -- it makes it a felony for any person to disclose sexually explicit photos or images of someone else without that person 's consent . ) But until recently , a California revenge porn law did not protect victims who took the photos themselves , even if those photos were stolen or otherwise posted without their knowledge or consent . That was n't just ineffectual lawmaking , but full on victim blaming . Indeed , when it comes to revenge porn , there is a lot of that going around . Think back to when Jennifer Lawrence and others had their nude , formerly private photos posted online . People asked why these women would be so careless as to take them , and send them , in the first place ? What did they expect would happen ? Never mind that many of the photos had been originally shared with trusted partners , some of whom were still in these women 's lives , or that in at least one case , the stolen pictures in question had been deleted years ago . ( There are some very skilled hackers out there . ) If they do n't exist , the logic goes , you 've got nothing to worry about . Nothing , that is , beyond buying into the idea that women who `` put themselves in a compromising position , '' in a way deserve whatever consequences result . It 's a short hop to the thinking that helps rapists avoid punishment because `` she asked for it , '' or `` she did n't say no , '' or `` just look at what she was wearing . Just look at how she 's acted in the past . '' There are many reasons to create stronger , clearer , federal criminal laws prohibiting the anonymous public posting of naked photographs of people who are not you . But perhaps the most important reason is to work toward eliminating , once and for all , the idea that victims of crimes bear any modicum of blame . Criminal invasion of privacy continues to occur because criminals exist , and they are not adequately punished . Curbing our own behavior only means they win .
Peggy Drexler : FTC 's barring man from posting nude images online does n't go far enough . Drexler says federal government should make `` revenge porn '' a crime .