Nevada Senate committee hears bill to expand unlawful-dissemination law to photorealistic, AI-generated images

CARSON CITY — The Nevada Senate Judiciary Committee on March 12 heard testimony on SB 213, a bill from Senator Jeff Stone that would expand the crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image to cover photorealistic and computer-generated depictions of identifiable people.

Senator Jeff Stone, sponsor of SB 213, told the committee the bill is designed to address “the rise of AI advancement” and said law enforcement “can no longer tell the difference between real and AI generated imagery,” which he argued hampers prosecution. Stone said the bill would broaden the definition of “intimate image” to include “photorealistic images, digital images, electronic images, computer generated images and other pictorial representations” that depict an intimate body part of an identifiable person even when the image does not depict an actual body part of that person.

The bill, as presented, includes an intent requirement and an exclusion for minors. Stone said section 2 adds an intent element that targets actions “done with the intent to harass, harm, or terrorize another person,” and that the measure would not subject persons under 18 to prosecution under this statute. He also said the draft designates the offense as a category D felony. Stone advised the committee that section 3 of the draft would be stricken and that section 2, subsection 4 would not require sex-offender registration.

Why it matters: Supporters said the measure closes a gap that currently allows people who distribute convincing but fabricated images to escape prosecution because existing law focuses on “actual imagery.” Jennifer Noble of the Nevada District Attorneys Association said prosecutors must still prove intent and absence of consent; she told the committee, “This is not a catch-all strict liability offense.” Jason Woodard of the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association and Joshua Martinez of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department said the bill would give law enforcement additional tools to pursue harassment, sextortion and related offenses involving AI-generated images.

Concerns and legal context: Committee members and opponents raised constitutional and practical questions. Multiple speakers referenced federal case law. A committee member noted the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and another cited United States v. Williams (2008) as part of the legal backdrop. Legal counsel for the committee explained the bill is keyed to the dissemination of an image rather than its creation and that the expansion would reach “every person down the line” who disseminates the image, potentially including those who later share it without creating it.

Defense offices urged clearer language to avoid unintended consequences. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office and Paloma Guerreiro of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office said they appreciated the identifiable-person language and the carve-out for minors but said the draft raises unanswered questions about prosecutorial consequences and how the statute would be applied in common fact patterns. Knott said opposition stemmed from “questions...more than answered” by the current draft and urged amendments.

Committee discussion also examined evidentiary and enforcement practicalities: several members asked whether law enforcement would need technical experts to distinguish AI-generated images from staged photos or images of look-alikes. Jason Woodard said initial screening usually starts with the victim’s own attestation; he added that in cases moving toward prosecution an expert review might be necessary.

Other points raised in testimony and questioning: - Stone cited a Forbes article during his presentation, saying “34,000,000 AI generated images are created daily with at least 2,000 AI tools now available online,” as background for why he brought the bill. - The bill explicitly requires lack of prior consent to distribution as an element, which Chair Scheibel observed would make proof of nonconsent an essential prosecutorial burden and would generally require cooperation from the person depicted. - Supporters from industry and advocacy — including Edith Duarte representing TechNet and Janine Hanson of Nevada Families for Freedom — said platform cooperation and industry tools can help but that law enforcement needs statutory authority to act.

No final action: The committee held a public hearing and took testimony in support and opposition but did not vote on final passage of SB 213 at this meeting. Senator Stone said he is willing to work with opponents on language changes.

What’s next: The hearing record will remain open for bill drafting and amendment; Senator Stone said he would consider working with public defenders and other stakeholders to refine language.

Ending: The Judiciary Committee closed the SB 213 hearing and proceeded to introduce several bill drafts on unrelated topics.