Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nonconsensual Image Distribution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves expansion of Arkansas law criminalizing nonconsensual image distribution
Summary
The committee advanced House Bill 1967 to expand Arkansas' criminal law on nonconsensual image distribution beyond current limits tied to dating relationships and to broaden intent-to-harm definitions.
The committee voted to advance House Bill 1967, a measure sponsored by Representative Carolyn Brown that would broaden Arkansas' criminal statute on nonconsensual image distribution so it is not limited to current or former dating partners.
Representative Carolyn Brown (District 67) told the committee the current statute, Arkansas Code § 5-26-314 (as cited in testimony), applies only when the offender is a current or former dating partner. She said that “evil people are learning how to, to be even more evil and, our people are suffering and being taken advantage of and being extorted, with by their images.”
The amendment proposed in HB 1967 would remove the requirement that the perpetrator be a current or former dating partner or family member. It would also expand the definition of intent to harm so that distribution “with the purpose to cause physical, mental, economic, or reputational harm or an exchange for something of value” could be prosecuted as a felony, while preserving a misdemeanor classification for cases that lack such intent to harm, the sponsor said.
Representative Brown said the bill is narrowly focused to avoid conflict with HB 1529 (deepfake-related legislation) and that the attorney general’s office had reviewed and supported the measure.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about terminology; Representative Brown said she did not have a specific reason for switching particular phrasing (from earlier statutory language) but noted the bill’s definitions are explicit. The committee recorded an immediate-consideration motion and later approved the bill with a do-pass motion.
There were two witnesses signed in for HB 1967 but due to time constraints the committee proceeded to vote. The transcript records the committee’s motions and that the bill was advanced; precise roll-call tallies were not recorded in the committee transcript.
The committee’s action sends HB 1967 forward for further legislative consideration; the transcript does not record floor action or an effective date.
