[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6380123,"mediaKeyId","2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157","parentId",2133212,"title","Committee examines several bills to criminalize computer‑generated child sexual imagery and to clarify penalties","audioSeconds",2912,"startMs",4568000,"endMs",7480000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157&start=4568&end=7480","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157/thumbnail_4568000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6380123/North-Dakota/Committee-examines-several-bills-to-criminalize-computergenerated-child-sexual-imagery-and-to-clarify-penalties","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380123-d84312c2da38dfad390a1cf1463ef545/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173194&Signature=oHwlJmgvgv-4hz31jleC7VfZWIVHSVejfA1zfSjJq2OfHfczp92K2AEUMLpkoICHtmlUHyes5E2KTq47JbkSKrp4cHeMXk4pbfDKf3h~uAJ4kB~hhoTW1XzRljtJPofhWgPKjcmPH4IiLtLSfNMNHWXHe9z7toTKpBhtrZGI9FwgKGqZpAb7kUDwrAsWfclSYfVFrW7erOugD~DbVWYSI5uJEFxNgBrCWKi0Fmr5zJ2vaYWc5eGE0HQgdPwVCJwnt0TIUN7PL~o20uwsvP-wZ2O1P4OrgyM7tLshpgNLYk3wSj2WbHO5fuIasJKssVjNF51RHwnjtapNMVmWqT68Yg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Judiciary, ND","date","2025-01-20T00:00:00Z","article","Members of the House Judiciary Committee considered multiple bills addressing computer‑generated sexual imagery, commonly described in testimony as \"deepfakes,\" and proposed changes to statutes covering child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

Representative Bernie Satrim and others introduced House Bill 1351 (initial draft) that would criminalize production, possession and distribution of certain computer‑generated images depicting minors engaged in sexual conduct; prosecutor and victims' advocates testified that the draft should be strengthened, including upgrading penalties to felony level and narrowing or eliminating broad affirmative‑defense language. Anna Frizzell, representing Children's Advocacy Centers of North Dakota, recommended elevating the proposed misdemeanor to a class C felony and removing some blanket affirmative defenses that could permit reuse of identifiable minors' images ‘‘without the express and written permission of the minor or their parent or guardian.’'

Tech industry representatives suggested an explicit liability shield for providers of interactive computer services, pointing to 47 U.S.C. §230, and asked committees to avoid unintentionally imposing platform liability. Terry Efertz of TechND proposed model language: \"nothing in this section shall be construed to impose liability on the provider of an interactive computer service ...\" and asked for a consistent disclaimer across bills.

The chief deputy attorney general, Claire Ness, testified in strong support of House Bill 1386 (version 25.1064.0100000), which would amend statutes including section 12.127.204.1 to ensure prosecutors can charge creation, possession or trade of computer‑generated CSAM and to enhance penalties in the most egregious possession cases. Ness told the committee that tips from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to BCI have grown dramatically—379 in 2019, 585 in 2020 and more than 1,500 in each of the past two years—and argued that technological advances have made computer‑generated material indistinguishable from real imagery.

Witnesses and committee members debated technical and constitutional issues. Several asked whether images generated wholly in software (sometimes called \"virtual\" CSAM) or morphed images that incorporate an identifiable child should be treated the same. Witnesses noted the 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that protected some virtual images then, but said today's AI‑generated images are far more realistic and that obscenity doctrine would not protect obscene CSAM. Lawmakers and TechND representatives also discussed political satire and other First Amendment concerns; tech witnesses warned the broad misdemeanor proposed in House Bill 1320 (deepfake impersonation misdemeanor) could chill parody and surprise lawful uses.

Committee questions focused on definitions (virtual vs. morphed vs. identifiable minor), age thresholds (whether to use ‘‘prepubescent’’ or fixed ages such as under 12), and whether penalties should scale by severity (number of images, presence of sexual violence, infant/toddler victims). The attorney general's office urged enhancements for possession of the most brutal material and possession by registered offenders; Frizzell and other advocates recommended clarifying language to ensure identifiable minors cannot be reused without consent and to align statutory terms (e.g., replace ‘‘****** performance’’ language with \"child sexual abuse material\" or other modern terminology).

No bill was voted on; the committee closed the hearings and accepted written testimony.

Why it matters: Rapid improvements in AI make previously theoretical harms practicable; the bills aim to ensure prosecutors can charge and penalize creation and possession of computer‑generated CSAM. Tech industry and civil‑liberties witnesses urged narrowly targeted language to avoid chilling legitimate speech and to protect intermediaries that are not the source of illicit content.

What’s next: Sponsors and stakeholders indicated willingness to work on definitions, penalty levels and platform liability language before committee action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Judiciary Jan 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Members of the House Judiciary Committee considered multiple bills that would criminalize computer‑generated sexual images and expand statutes governing child sexual abuse material (CSAM).","taxTitle","Judiciary, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28895,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6380128,"Committee hears bill seeking stricter mandatory minimums for human trafficking offenses",1840,2640000,4480000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157&start=2640&end=4480","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157/thumbnail_2640000.jpg","/articles/6380128/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-bill-seeking-stricter-mandatory-minimums-for-human-trafficking-offenses","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380128-226907b5076b8cf6adaff3f341c3ba6c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173194&Signature=KBCm0ip5kXTY3rdkUg3L-8T-hmTu9lUE~3tlLG46KSpK4NDXjIckyG9H5DtH-8PKnRN5Pr2WoLkPluzBrKMEuzIYjh-KQV5co~ehCf6~4ITdVXhTPB176N8DMdbB6XyuxmNdQV1gKZsaolgOUXVKJDo0MJcgH2YnYjlUuh2KcfKEimgdBkwPpRjJx7VTQkdo-U1WWJWuYb9OYc4PiRDwy6Q54mzJYEIyL53WIIV-c~fZvhMErYVFgSAHa4Ts0S4XeVrfvEIpZyBDDHKxPzUYlvEGPk4jCqlZA9rr~tQqAbyo-WPcf5hKe4L33t0anFZp2jTZ62TnOrYNMcESwJ1lCQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee opened testimony on House Bill 1361, which the clerk read as \"a bill for an act to create and enact a new section to chapter 12.141 of the North Dakota Century Code relating to mandatory minimum sentences for human trafficking offenders and to provide a penalty.\"

Representative Johnston (District 24) told the committee he introduced the bill because he views human trafficking as an ‘‘epidemic’’ and said the bill’s mandatory minimums would send a deterrent message. Johnston described proposed minimums as follows: for a class B trafficking offense the minimum would be three years less than the maximum for that felony; for a class A offense the minimum would be five years less than the current maximum (20 years); and for a class ‘‘double A’’ offense the bill would set a 40‑year minimum, described by the sponsor as intended to dissuade traffickers from operating in North Dakota.

Several advocacy and survivor‑service witnesses urged passage. Jacob Thompson, policy analyst with North Dakota Family Alliance Legislative Action, asked the committee to grant HB 1361 a do‑pass, citing the North Dakota Human Trafficking Task Force’s count that about 700 victims were served between 2016 and 2022 and warning traffickers will follow economic booms. Piper Bjornson, identified as a survivor and participant in a survivor mentorship program, described being trafficked in Williston and said her trafficker later received a 20‑year sentence; Bjornson said stronger sentencing would support survivor safety and prosecution.

Todd Fuseta, founder of Archangel Ministries and an advocate with extensive experience working with trafficking victims, told the committee harsher sentences are needed because of the brutality and organized nature of many trafficking operations. Tyler Merkel of the 318 Project and other local service providers also testified in support of stronger penalties and described survivor services and outreach work.

Committee members pressed the sponsor and witnesses on proportionality and effectiveness. Representative Satrim asked whether a 40‑year minimum might be disproportionate compared with other crimes and whether mandatory minimums are shown to deter trafficking; Johnston and testimony providers acknowledged limited direct evidence of deterrent effects, but argued the bill would create a strong legal signal. Representative Sasser warned mandatory minimums can reduce prosecutors’ ability to secure cooperation from defendants, which in turn can impede dismantling trafficking networks; Johnston said prosecutors can still plea and downgrade counts in exchange for cooperation.

No formal action was taken during the hearing. Members heard written opposition submitted online but did not hear in‑person opponents.

Why it matters: Witnesses framed trafficking as severe and growing—advocates say longer mandatory sentences protect victims and send a message to traffickers; some lawmakers and witnesses urged caution, citing research questions about deterrence and concerns that mandatory minimums can reduce incentives to cooperate with law enforcement on larger investigations.

What’s next: The committee closed the hearing to consider testimony and any proposed amendments.","Representative Johnston presented House Bill 1361 to create mandatory minimum sentences for human trafficking offenses. Supporters said tougher penalties will deter traffickers; some lawmakers and witnesses questioned whether mandatory minimums reduce trafficking or hinder investigations and cooperation with prosecutors.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6380133,"Committee hears bill allowing rehabilitated low‑risk registrants to petition for removal from public registry",2396,241000,2637000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157&start=241&end=2637","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157/thumbnail_241000.jpg","/articles/6380133/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-bill-allowing-rehabilitated-lowrisk-registrants-to-petition-for-removal-from-public-registry","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380133-209915046e23798d8bacc846cce5fc64/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173194&Signature=B3E4kGx7QSb6tkSUlvO3lQETXYQxZi78ryOA844Q-SVZWpf0uBAHkaFt5fyoWyaZil2A3eghC-~PaVSCnGoy6PTWxgK2bihMG6KFrOqvJmhWjWDV5DPIyFHFbdQPksZWKSuuYeg8k8UwtoRuh45ZznIdAJ5-Rgc8t9K4MQnYAuwINjY4M4mVdSc2Nc5JFBLkOxn~keKIpC5m2Zutuf7Q-nAfeUEdNTxlP8LQD8UtBcrFOtEq0Jl0EH6d5RnnZgB4qmhT53itFo1xEBhJx5bhuuY-cORF5BDIApbfzyChCWTi0WN8kPmLXqp-kqqKn9-jFp0VAfpYq3low4pg7jCBBg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Judiciary Committee members on the morning agenda heard testimony on House Bill 1231, a proposal ‘‘to create and enact section 12.13215.1 of the North Dakota Century Code relating to a petition for relief from requiring a ****** offender to register and to provide for application,’’ the clerk read.

Representative Jason Doctor, District 7, told the committee HB 1231 would allow a ‘‘rehabilitated, low risk, compliant ****** offender the opportunity to petition the court for removal of the registry,’’ and he said the bill modeled relief available in more than 40 other states. Doctor said the bill targets people who have completed incarceration, probation or parole, completed treatment and ‘‘successfully registered for at least 7 years’’ and remain labeled on the public list despite those steps.

The proposal drew multiple supporters who described practical barriers to reentry. Sister Kathleen Atkinson, director of Ministry on the Margins, said: \"This legislation allows a man or a woman to petition the court for removal from that public registration based on the determination that a person is no longer a threat to the community.\" Atkinson and Nate Mickelson, Prison Reentry Manager at Ministry on the Margins, gave examples—including difficulty obtaining housing, loss of employment and restrictions on school property access—that they said persist even after people complete supervision and treatment.

Brad Peterson, legal director of Protection & Advocacy, described a case involving an elderly registrant with cognitive decline and said HB 1231 would provide a court option short of asking an entire conviction to be set aside: \"At least it would have been a chance to go into the registry to seek that option. That's what this law does is an option or an opportunity. It's not automatic.\" Peterson said courts would likely scrutinize petitions closely.

Casey Miller, chief agent with the North Dakota Bureau of Criminal Investigation, provided procedural detail about how risk levels are set and how long registrants remain required to register. Miller said the state uses a committee—the sex offender risk assessment committee (SORAC)—that reviews criminal history, psychological testing and other information to assign a level. He said low‑risk registrants generally face a 15‑year registration requirement, moderate 25 years and high risk lifetime registration; he noted some low‑risk registrants can also have lifetime registration based on complicating factors. Miller gave current counts, saying there were about 523 low‑risk registrants subject to time‑limited registration and approximately 110 low‑risk registrants subject to lifetime registration in North Dakota.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions. Representative McLeod asked why the bill sets the petition window at seven years; Representative Van Winkle confirmed the bill would apply to registrants of any age, not only juveniles. Representative Olson and others sought detail on how ‘‘risk’’ is determined; witnesses described a multi‑factor assessment process independent of the charging document.

Members also raised procedural questions that could affect victims and public notice. Representative Vedder asked about a provision allowing a petition hearing to be closed to the public; supporters said the court should retain discretion because public hearings can lead to harassment and that closing a hearing could protect a rehabilitated low‑risk registrant from additional harm. Opponents were not present in person but written opposition was noted as submitted online.

The committee took only testimony and did not vote on the bill during the hearing. Chairman Clamine closed the testimony and indicated the committee would consider written submissions and the record during later deliberations.

Why it matters: Supporters framed the bill as a reentry and public‑safety tool that could reduce housing and employment barriers for people assessed as low risk; law enforcement witnesses cautioned the assessment process is multi‑step and that a petition is not an automatic removal mechanism.

What’s next: The committee held the hearing and said it would review written testimony and data before any committee action.","Lawmakers and witnesses debated House Bill 1231, which would let rehabilitated, low‑risk registrants petition a court to remove their names from the public registry after seven years of compliance. Supporters described housing and employment barriers; law enforcement described assessment and registration procedures and current timeframes.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6380118,"Lawmakers seek study of state laws on criminal conduct against children, including AI and terminology updates",0,8715000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157&start=8715&end=8715","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2133212-437e059c764902c348b3fbcce8b64157/thumbnail_8715000.jpg","/articles/6380118/North-Dakota/Lawmakers-seek-study-of-state-laws-on-criminal-conduct-against-children-including-AI-and-terminology-updates","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6380118-b4e00dafca05d11f3995690733988488/orig.mp4?Expires=1771173194&Signature=QrmoRVbGKinDxo3LyXr6nbqC05o0dAgtw0Sy5oORSWQVONI2Rx6gcPDgGF5IyvKb47iiZxvI1l7K1BgLaZVGgLcKlYinuRDsWkkYcomwUcqDwc-xTIV2fzcrssJDg1y6ynYXMIJUjHCjv62HD1uDyVhO2164ckihlDgNhrl-rB~848ffuoyiDTmqg0XXXtQ0ORBtaIwBuKHtohpPmlg373BKJPz4Q3RyBa5UPnK-iL3aj3~b9fRs4wot7PPlqu~0rDJPvK08mw91Z9KvPrQ2Iv9KUauSqCQxpKyx0yfwf~I9AZR96MD4MThZDaAhmra-G5Yl84MxcFf4LX3A6NVE4A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Judiciary Committee heard House Bill 1410, a request for a legislative management study \"regarding a review of state laws relating to criminal conduct against children,\" introduced by Representative Mary Schneider.

Representative Schneider said the study would review statutory language and recommended replacing outdated phrases such as \"****** performance\" with terminology like \"child sexual abuse material\" (CSAM) or other language deemed appropriate by the study. Schneider said the study would also examine the role of artificial intelligence in creating or facilitating crimes involving children and review investigation and prosecution practices for child sexual abuse, physical abuse and neglect.

Witnesses included Anna Frizzell of the Children's Advocacy Centers, who told the committee that the term \"performance\" wrongly implies willing participation by minors and urged the legislature to update terminology and align sanctions and definitions across statutes. Christy Dodd, executive director of Families Flourish ND (formerly Prevent Child Abuse North Dakota), supported the study and underscored resources the task force has produced on prevention and professional training.

TechND indicated support for a study that would gather multidisciplinary input; witnesses and the sponsor said the legislative study would rely on experts—law enforcement, prosecutors, child‑welfare professionals, victim advocates, technology experts and others—to develop recommendations for any statutory changes.

Committee members asked procedural questions about the study's composition and how outside experts would participate; legislators noted that the interim study body would be composed of legislators who could solicit expert testimony during the interim. The committee closed the hearing and received written materials from the task force and partner organizations.

Why it matters: Advocates argued that language updates and a focused review could improve prosecutions, victim protection and statutory clarity as technology such as AI changes how child‑exploitation material is created and distributed.

What’s next: The committee will consider the study request and any amendment language before deciding whether to add the study to the legislative management docket.","Representative Mary Schneider asked the committee to authorize a legislative study of statutes covering crimes against children. Proponents said the study should update outdated language (for example, replacing references to '****** performance') and evaluate how artificial intelligence affects child‑protection statutes and prosecution.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee examines several bills to criminalize computer‑generated child sexual imagery and to clarify penalties

Committee hears bill seeking stricter mandatory minimums for human trafficking offenses

Committee hears bill allowing rehabilitated low‑risk registrants to petition for removal from public registry

Lawmakers seek study of state laws on criminal conduct against children, including AI and terminology updates