Committee debates bill to criminalize AI‑generated intimate images of minors; state police support, prosecutors urge refining parental‑consent language

Sen. Dan Ennis (R–District 7) told the Senate Judiciary Committee he filed SP 300 after a constituent reported that images of high‑school athletes had been manipulated with artificial intelligence to simulate nudity. Ennis said federal and state law had not kept pace and proposed classifying creation of AI‑generated intimate visual depictions of persons 17 and younger as a class B felony.

Ennis said he worked with the Attorney General’s office on draft language. He described the bill as narrowly targeted to images of minors and said it was intended to close a gap left by prior statutes as technology advanced.

Tamara Hester of the New Hampshire State Police, who works in the investigative unit affiliated with the Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, testified that the bill would help address “child erotica” material that does not meet the statutory definition of child sexual‑abuse images but remains exploitative when generated or distributed. Hester also raised drafting questions about whether the bill should criminalize mere possession of such images and about an element in section 1(b) that excludes images when a parent or guardian implicitly or explicitly consents to the image; she suggested further work to avoid inadvertently criminalizing lawful parental images.

Merrimack County Assistant County Attorney Steven Endress said prosecutors support protecting children but urged care in drafting. He recommended exceptions for medical, investigative or law‑enforcement documentation and said a standalone statute that criminalizes the creation of these images could be incorporated into existing child‑pornography statutes. Endress also warned that the bill’s parental‑consent language could sweep too broadly given cases in which parents exploit minors.

Committee members and witnesses discussed whether the bill should criminalize possession in addition to production, and how to treat images created by AI models that superimpose a minor’s likeness onto existing material. Sponsors indicated willingness to accept a floor amendment to clarify the parental‑consent language; the State Police said they would work with advocates on technical changes.

Action: The committee voted to recommend passage with a plan for a floor amendment to address the parental‑consent clause and related drafting questions. A committee voice vote is recorded in the hearing transcript; no roll‑call tally appears in the excerpt.