House Judiciary Committee advances bill expanding penalties for possession of computer-generated sexual images of minors

The House Judiciary Committee on an amended vote advanced House Bill 1386, which would expand criminal penalties for possession of certain computer-generated sexual images involving minors, voting 9 to 5 to give the bill a do pass as amended.

The bill, as amended by Representative Carls, revises language that previously used the term “prepubescent minor” to specify a “minor under 12 years of age” and replaces “infant or toddler” with “minor under 3 years of age.” Representative Carls said the changes were intended to reduce vagueness in the bill’s age categories and to limit potential liability for internet service providers by clarifying that providers who only provide the platform should not be automatically liable.

Supporters, including Representative Carls and Representative McCloud, said the amendments target materials that depict sexual conduct involving young children, whether in photographs or in some cases computer-generated images.

Opponents and questioners raised two recurring concerns: whether age-based, enhanced penalties can lawfully apply to purely AI-generated images (because an AI image may not depict a real child), and whether placing the computer-generated-image language in the statute chapter addressing sexual performances by children is the right location. Representative Twite asked why the cutoff for a heightened penalty was 12 rather than 18 and noted the bill already treats possession generally as a class C felony. Representative Wolfe and others said that AI-generated imagery complicates the statute because “you can’t say that’s a child under 12” when the image is not of an actual person, and urged careful drafting so penalties apply as intended.

Committee members discussed federal law and industry practice regarding service-provider monitoring. Representative Schneider said she was “really uncomfortable” giving blanket liability to providers without further research; Representative Carls said the amendment was intended to avoid imposing broad platform liability.

Anna Frizzell, cited by committee members as an expert witness who had testified to the committee, was referenced as supporting the bill’s penalties; committee discussion noted she had “appreciated the penalty that is in this” (as reported to the committee).

The committee first approved Representative Carls’s amendment by roll call earlier in the hearing (motion carried 13 to 0, 1 absent). Later, after extended discussion and a motion to reconsider, the committee voted to give HB 1386 a do pass as amended; the final roll-call vote on the do-pass motion was 9 yes, 5 no.

The committee also discussed related bills (including references to HB 1351 and HB 1320) and whether provisions addressing deepfake or computer-generated obscene material more broadly should be included in a different chapter of law dealing with obscenity. Several members said they plan to consider overlap with the obscenity chapter when they take up HB 1351 later in the session.

The bill now moves forward as amended; the committee named a bill carrier to carry HB 1386 to the next stage.

The meeting record shows multiple requests for more precise drafting on how age-based enhancements apply to purely computer-generated imagery and a desire by some members for additional analysis before final floor consideration.