A Texas court has declared a Texas state revenge porn law as unconstitutional infringement of speech.

END OF MESSAGE

Yea, Texas is tough. I always was uneasy touring Dallas and Houston

where's the link?  

People who publish revenge porn are assholes, but that isn't sufficient to make something illegal. The problem with the law IMHO is that it reverts ownership of images to the subject of the image. That would overturn the history of such ownership.  Models could stop publications at whim, photographers thrown in jail willie nillie. Porn stars could pull permission at any time to the same effect.

Once ownership is set, all else follows. If I own a photo, I can publish it or not. Exceptions are only at the point of obtaining it, such as peeping toms etc, any viloation of obtaining the image where the subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

This is pretty much the business model of FaceBook -- once you've posted ANYTHING to the site, FB owns it. Many people mistakenly believe that the photos and info they post to FB are the property of the individual, in perpetuity. Should they ever read and understand the Terms of Service, they would be rudely awakened to the opposite.

What about defamation?I don't see it that way. A PRO model or porn star signs a model release stipulating what the photog can and cannot do with the photos.  I mean, if a model poses for a bra advertisement in a catalog, I suspect she can request that her images NOT be posted to a porn site or a fetish site by the photog (even if some third parties try to post them there).  
.
I guess the problem is that there are so many wannabe models that anyone who asks to add a condition or two to a blanket release will be skipped over for the next model in the Roladex.  
.
Vanessa Williams signed a blanket release and did some legal, sexy (girl-girl, if I remember) photos BEFORE becoming Miss USA. Only then did the photog sell them to Penthouse and Williams had to resign her title.  The photog gave her VERBAL assurances at the time of the shoot ("silhouettes only" "no one will recognize you") which were worthless.  
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/williams-resigns-america-photo-scandal-1984-article-1.2301829But I would add other exceptions that can be incorporated into the original model release or contract if agreed to by all signing parties (and those to whom the photos and permissions are transferred).

We all know what revenge porn is....
A boyfriend and girlfriend do their own little slice of spice with pics or vids. Then they breakup, and the butthurt party posts their shit on the web for all to see.  
In most cases, you know the woman never intended that to be seen beyond his eyes. So, it really should be at least a civil penalty on the books for such actions.
As earlier said... models sign a release. They know those pictures may see light of day, and it's something they choose to do, as well as being compensated for it. They may regret it later in life, but it was an informed decision they made at whatever juncture, and they have to own that.
If you think this shouldn't be a punishable offense, then any man or woman who chooses to do this with an SO, may as well assume that it will be posted for the world to see. If I were a fly on the wall, I'd bet that each time a picture or video was taken... the girl said " this is just for you. You're not going to show anyone else, right?" And dollar to a dime the guy said " no baby.  I'll never let anyone else see it."
It might be verbal.... but that's clear breach of contract. If you wanna be technical.

What you say may be correct, but that is a tort, a contract dispute, not a criminal complaint.