Committee weighs S.23 amendments on synthetic-media disclosures ahead of planned vote

The Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee reviewed proposed amendments to S.23, a bill that would require disclosures for deceptive or fraudulent synthetic images and videos used in elections, at a meeting Thursday afternoon, May 1, as legislative counsel summarized five changes and members asked for input from the attorney general and outside experts before a planned vote next week.

Committee members heard from Tim Devlin, legislative counsel, who said the committee had a committee amendment (draft 1.2) and that members should review both the amendment and the underlying Senate-passed text because the amendment is not a strike-all. Devlin summarized five specific edits, including changes to disclosure-size language, deletion of a sentence about disclosures when no other text appears in an image or video, expanded exceptions for news and commentary, added language covering the distribution (not just production) of satire and parody, and renaming a remedies heading to “enforcement.” Devlin read from the draft: "the disclosure shall appear in a size that's easily readable by the average viewer," and noted the committee would remove a later clause about matching the largest font size in the visual media.

The nut graf: Members focused on two core issues: how to define and prove a person "knew" or "should have known" they distributed deceptive synthetic material, and how enforcement would operate in practice. Several members asked counsel to bring back a clean compiled draft and a legal analysis and to invite the attorney general's office and outside groups for testimony so the committee can address prosecutorial and technical questions before voting.

Discussion details Committee members asked several practical and legal questions. Representative Nugent asked if the bill contains a legal standard for who "should have known" they were distributing synthetic material; counsel replied that the draft follows typical frameworks that include a "knowing" component and can treat willful blindness as equivalent in many contexts. Members repeatedly raised enforcement questions: who would investigate or prosecute alleged violations (several members suggested the attorney general), how provenance or digital forensics would be established, and how the law would distinguish satire or parody from deceptive material.

Members noted other states' experience and federal and military cybersecurity expertise as useful references. A committee member said 17 states have enacted deepfake or synthetic-media laws and suggested the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) or state statutes such as Illinois' earlier measures be asked to explain enforcement experience and anti-discrimination language used elsewhere. Members also asked for technical input from cybersecurity programs such as Norwich University's center and suggested inviting the National Guard or related cyber units for practical briefings.

Amendments summarized by counsel - Removal of the clause requiring disclosure text to be "not smaller than the largest font size of the other text appearing in the visual media." - Striking a sentence that addressed disclosure when the image or video did not include any other text. - Expanding exceptions so that broadcasters, streaming platforms and websites are exempt when deceptive synthetic media appear as part of a bona fide newscast, news documentary, commentary of general interest or on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events, provided the broadcast clearly acknowledges the nature of the content. - Expanding an exception to cover persons who "produce or distribute" synthetic media constituting satire or parody (adding distribution to production). - Changing the heading for remedies from "injunctions" to the broader term "enforcement," reflecting multiple enforcement mechanisms in the draft rather than only injunctions.

Directions and next steps The committee directed counsel to provide a compiled, clean version of the amended bill (so members need not cross-reference multiple documents) and to produce a legal analysis of the draft language. Members also asked staff to schedule time next week for the committee to take up the measure and to invite the attorney general's office, NCSL representatives or other state legislative experts, cybersecurity technical experts (Norwich University and related units were mentioned), and other prior witnesses who previously testified on the bill. No formal vote or motion was recorded at the meeting.

Context and caution Members emphasized they do not want to impede legitimate satire, parody, or newsgathering while seeking tools to hold actors accountable who intentionally use synthesized media to mislead voters or to defame individuals. Several members cautioned that practical investigation and prosecution raise difficult questions—who created versus who distributed content, the availability of digital provenance, and whether recipients who repost content unknowingly could be liable—so the committee prioritized obtaining prosecutorial and technical input before taking final action.

The committee will reconvene with a consolidated draft and additional testimony before any recorded vote.