Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.
Both Article 117a and Article 120c address wrongful distribution of private content, but they protect different interests and cover different types of material. Article 117a addresses wrongful broadcast or distribution of “covered communications,” which are private communications or images distributed without consent. Article 120c specifically addresses indecent visual recordings, focusing on intimate or sexual imagery. Understanding which article applies depends on the nature of the content distributed and the context of the distribution.
The Content Distinction
Article 117a Wrongful Broadcast covers:
Private communications or images
Distributed or broadcast without consent
With intent to harm or reckless disregard for the victim
This is a broader category covering any private content.
Article 120c Broadcasting of Intimate Images covers:
Intimate visual images (depicting private areas)
Recorded without consent or distributed without consent
Specifically sexual or intimate in nature
This specifically targets what’s commonly called “revenge porn” or non-consensual intimate imagery.
Different Protected Interests
Article 117a protects:
General privacy in communications
Confidentiality of private exchanges
Protection from harassment through disclosure
Dignity interests in keeping private matters private
Article 120c specifically protects:
Sexual privacy
Intimate bodily autonomy
Protection from sexual exploitation through imagery
Dignity interests specifically tied to intimate content
Article 120c is a specialized version addressing the particular harm of intimate image distribution.
Article 117a: Covered Communications
Article 117a elements include:
Covered communication. A private communication or image that the creator intended to remain private.
Wrongful broadcast or distribution. Sharing the communication beyond its intended recipients.
Without consent. The creator or subject didn’t authorize the distribution.
With requisite mental state. Intent to harm, harass, or coerce, or reckless disregard for whether distribution would cause harm.
This covers:
Private text messages shared publicly
Private photos distributed without permission
Confidential communications disclosed harmfully
Intimate content (overlapping with 120c)
Article 120c: Intimate Visual Recordings
Article 120c specifically addresses:
Indecent visual recording. Recording someone’s private area without consent.
Broadcasting or distributing. Sharing intimate images without consent.
The content must be:
Visual images (photos, video)
Depicting intimate areas or sexual conduct
Recorded or distributed without consent
This is narrower than 117a in content scope but specifically designed for intimate imagery.
Overlap and Distinction
Overlap:
Intimate images distributed without consent could be charged under either article:
Article 117a: Private image distributed without consent with intent to harm
Article 120c: Intimate visual image distributed without consent
Prosecutors may choose either or both depending on the circumstances.
Article 117a only (not 120c):
Distributing private text conversations to embarrass someone. No intimate imagery involved, so 120c doesn’t apply, but 117a covers private communications.
Sharing private non-intimate photos without consent. Article 117a if done with harmful intent.
Article 120c only (not 117a):
Recording someone’s private area without consent, even if not distributed. Article 120c covers the recording itself; Article 117a focuses on distribution.
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear Article 117a (non-intimate):
A service member screenshots private text conversations discussing a colleague’s personal problems and shares them widely to humiliate the colleague. Private communication distributed without consent with harmful intent. Article 117a.
A service member obtains another’s private photos (non-intimate) from their phone and posts them online with mocking commentary. Article 117a covers this distribution of private images.
Clear Article 120c (intimate):
After a breakup, a service member posts nude photos of their ex-partner online without consent. This is classic “revenge porn” under Article 120c.
A service member places a hidden camera in a bathroom and records others. The recording itself violates Article 120c, even without distribution.
Both articles potentially apply:
A service member distributes intimate photos of a former partner with messages mocking and harassing them. Both articles could apply: 120c for the intimate imagery, 117a for the broader pattern of harmful distribution of private content.
The Recording vs Distribution Question
Article 120c covers both:
Recording intimate images without consent (the act of capturing)
Distributing intimate images without consent (sharing what was captured)
Article 117a primarily covers:
Distribution or broadcast (not the initial recording)
This means secretly recording someone’s private area is Article 120c regardless of distribution. But distributing non-intimate private content requires Article 117a (or other provisions).
Punishment Comparison
Article 117a (Wrongful Broadcast):
Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement (varies based on circumstances)
Article 120c (Intimate Image Offenses):
Indecent visual recording: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 5 years
Broadcasting intimate images: dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, confinement for 7 years
Article 120c carries specified maximums reflecting the particular severity of intimate image offenses.
Intent Requirements
Article 117a requires:
Intent to harm, harass, intimidate, or coerce, OR
Reckless disregard for whether distribution would cause such harm
Article 120c requires:
Knowledge that the recording or distribution is wrongful
No specific intent to harm required for the offense itself
This means 120c can be easier to prove because it doesn’t require proving harmful intent, just knowing wrongfulness.
The Consent Question
Both articles involve consent issues:
For recording (120c): Did the subject consent to being recorded?
For distribution (both): Did the subject consent to distribution, even if they consented to the original recording or communication?
Consent to one doesn’t imply consent to the other:
Someone might consent to intimate photos being taken but not to distribution
Someone might share private messages with one person but not authorize wider sharing
Consent at one stage doesn’t create blanket consent.
Defenses
For Article 117a:
Consent to distribution
No intent to harm or reckless disregard
The content wasn’t private/covered
The distribution was authorized
For Article 120c:
Consent to recording
Consent to distribution
The images didn’t depict private areas
No knowledge of wrongfulness
Lawful purpose (law enforcement, security)
Digital Evidence Considerations
Both offenses typically involve digital evidence:
Screenshots and saved messages
Photo and video files
Social media posts
Distribution platforms and messaging apps
Metadata showing when content was created and shared
Digital forensics can establish timelines, distribution scope, and sometimes intent.
The Platform Question
Where content is distributed affects the analysis:
Public posting (social media, websites): Clear distribution to the world.
Group sharing (group chats, forums): Distribution to a defined audience.
Individual sharing (one-on-one messages): May still be distribution if outside intended recipients.
The scope of distribution may affect charging decisions and punishment but doesn’t eliminate the offense.
Military Context
These offenses have particular implications in military settings:
Unit cohesion. Distribution of private content within units destroys trust and cohesion.
Command response. Commands must address these situations to maintain good order.
Harassment patterns. Non-consensual image sharing often accompanies harassment or relationship abuse.
Career impact. Both victim and accused face career consequences.
Frequently Asked Questions
If someone sent me intimate photos voluntarily and we later broke up, can I share them?
No. Consent to send photos to you doesn’t mean consent to distribute them further. If someone shared intimate images with you privately during a relationship, they consented to you having them, not to you showing them to others. Distributing those images without their consent violates Article 120c regardless of how you obtained them originally. This is the classic “revenge porn” scenario that Article 120c was designed to address. Even if you believe you’re not doing it for “revenge,” non-consensual distribution of intimate images is criminal. Delete the images if the relationship ends, or at minimum keep them entirely private.
What’s the difference between “covered communications” under Article 117a and just regular communications?
“Covered communications” under Article 117a are communications or images that the creator reasonably expected to remain private. This includes: direct messages, private texts, emails to specific recipients, photos shared privately, and similar private exchanges. Regular communications might include public posts, broadcast messages, or content the creator made publicly available. The test is whether the creator had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Messages in a private chat: covered. Posts on a public social media page: probably not covered. The sender’s reasonable expectation, not just their hope, determines coverage.
Can I be charged under both articles for the same act of sharing intimate photos?
Potentially. If you distributed intimate images without consent, both Article 117a (wrongful broadcast of covered communications) and Article 120c (broadcasting intimate visual images) might apply. Prosecutors might charge one or both depending on the circumstances and evidence. Courts apply multiplicity rules to prevent unfair double punishment for what is essentially a single act, but being charged under both articles is possible. In practice, prosecutors often choose the article that best fits the facts or carries appropriate punishment rather than stacking charges, but the possibility of dual charging exists.