Nevada committee weighs bill to criminalize AI-generated child sexual abuse material

The Assembly Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 263 on Feb. 1, 2025, a proposal from Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro to update Nevada statutes to cover computer-generated or AI‑altered depictions of minors in sexually explicit material.

Cannizzaro said the measure is intended to close a gap in current law that prosecutors and law enforcement say has been exploited by people using generative artificial intelligence to create or alter visual media. “These advances in AI have introduced new challenges for law enforcement,” said Cannizzaro, describing how “deepfake” techniques can create images or video that are “virtually indistinguishable” from photographs of real children.

Under the bill as presented, the definition of child sexual abuse material would be expanded to include computer‑generated content that depicts an actual child or a visual representation that is indistinguishable from a minor. The bill would: add definitions for “computer generated child sexual abuse material” and “indistinguishable” (an ordinary‑person test); criminalize preparation, advertisement or distribution of such content with penalties that include fines up to $15,000 and prison; and make second or subsequent violations a category A felony punishable by a minimum of 10 years to life with parole eligibility, plus fines. The bill also would add computer‑generated material to the prohibition on possession and make conforming changes relating to sex‑offender registration.

Law‑enforcement witnesses told the committee they support the bill. Jacob Villani of the Clark County District Attorney’s Office explained that the Internet Crimes Against Children task force uses hashing to identify known CSAM and that AI‑generated material complicates investigations. “They use that number called a hash to identify known child sexual‑abuse images,” Villani said, describing how hashes alert service‑providers and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to suspected material.

Multiple law‑enforcement organizations filed support letters or presented testimony, including the Nevada District Attorneys Association, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association. They said AI tools are creating realistic images that can victimize survivors and tie up investigative resources.

Opponents included the Washoe County and Clark County public defenders and the ACLU of Nevada. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office testified in opposition, arguing the bill’s language risks criminalizing images that only “appear to involve minors” and could run afoul of the First Amendment and due‑process clarity requirements. Paloma Guerrero of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office urged adding a juvenile exception because teens experiment with image tools and could face severe lifelong consequences under the bill as written. Athar Hasibullah of ACLU Nevada said the bill’s vagueness and chilling effect on expression could prompt litigation.

Attorney General Aaron Ford and Cannizzaro argued the bill is narrowly tailored and conforms to obscenity standards the courts apply; Ford said, “This is not a victimless crime,” and said courts have adopted narrower, constitutional formulations after the U.S. Supreme Court’s earlier decisions on purely virtual images.

Committee members asked detailed constitutional and evidentiary questions about the bill’s “indistinguishable” test, whether cartoons or obviously fictional images are included, how possession or distribution counts (e.g., multiple images), whether juveniles would be prosecuted, and how prosecutors would prove a depiction was a child at trial. Presenters referenced federal case law including Ashcroft and subsequent statutory approaches adopted by Congress and some states as instructive context for crafting language meant to survive judicial review.

No callers testified from the public phone lines; the committee closed the hearing after final remarks. The transcript does not record a committee vote at this hearing.