A bill that would close loopholes to Colorado’s 2014 law against the non-consensual distribution of sexual images – what’s commonly referred to as “revenge porn” — unanimously passed the state House on Tuesday.

One major loophole addressed by the bill now qualifies sexual images that do not actually show the victim nude, such as can occur with oral sex, as “revenge porn.”

Additionally, the bill would remove the requirement to demonstrate that the defendant intends to inflict serious emotional distress on the victim, would remove an exception that postings are not illegal if part of a newsworthy event and would clarify that law enforcement and human or social service workers using photos in the course of their work aren’t subject to the law.

The bill is now headed to the Colorado state Senate, where it will likely meet similar approval.

Thirty-nine states have laws addressing the non-consensual distribution of sexual images, but Colorado is one of only three that limit the offense only to photographs that display the victim nude. This bill, thus, would elevate the state’s law to offer protections similar to those found in most other states.

Interestingly, civil libertarians and media organizations in Rhode Island remain opposed to a bill criminalizing “revenge porn” due to concerns it could violate the First Amendment and make it illegal to publish newsworthy photos involving nudity.

The state’s General Assembly passed a version of the bill in 2016, but it was vetoed by the Governor due to freedom-of-speech concerns.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee — also occurring on Tuesday of this week — American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island Executive Director Steve Brown cited published photos of tortured prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and a 9-year-old girl fleeing napalm in Vietnam as examples of news photos that could be considered criminal revenge porn. He also said a teenager who shared copies of hacked nude photos of actor Jennifer Lawrence could be charged with revenge porn.

“It will have a chilling effect on the media,” Brown said, adding that other states with “revenge porn” laws have added intent clauses to comply with the First Amendment.

The bill has an exception for publishing images that are “a matter of public concern,” but that could put the burden on a news organization to prove to a jury what they should find important, which is entirely subjective anyway.