Kansas committee hears bill to expand child-exploitation and privacy statutes to cover AI-generated images

The Kansas Senate Committee on the Judiciary on Monday heard testimony on House Bill 2183, a proposal to update multiple criminal statutes so images altered, generated or morphed by artificial intelligence that appear to depict people — including children — can be treated as criminal visual depictions.

Proponents told the committee the change is meant to close a gap in existing law that prosecutors and local investigators say allows AI-manipulated imagery to evade current child-exploitation and privacy statutes. "AI is getting so realistic now that you can't tell the difference if it's a real child or not," Rep. Brad Barrett said, explaining how a local case in his district prompted the bill. "It appears to depict a child under 18 years of age shown or heard engaging in explicit conduct."

The bill would amend KSA 21-55-10 (sexual exploitation of a child), KSA 21-56-11 (unlawful transmission of a visual depiction of a child) and KSA 21-61-01 (breach of privacy). It adds a statutory definition of "artificially generated visual depiction" to cover images and videos that are obscene and created or altered by computer software, AI, or other digital means, including images that are "indistinguishable from real children" or morphed from a real child. The measure also inserts an obscenity standard modeled on Miller v. California into the bill text to address constitutional protections for speech.

Supporters framed the changes as a modernization of Kansas law to match current technology. Shawnee County District Attorney Mike Kegay said advances since the early 2000s make many computer-generated images "virtually indistinguishable from reality" and argued the state has a "legitimate interest in safeguarding children." Ed Klump, testifying on behalf of the Kansas Sheriffs Association and allied law enforcement groups, said the proposed changes do not create an entirely new crime but extend existing prohibitions to cover AI-manipulated material.

Opponents raised constitutional and implementation concerns. Emily Brandt, representing the Kansas State Board of Indigence Defense Services' legislative committee, said the statutes still do not require a separate, jury-found obscenity element for conviction and that the bill as written could risk First Amendment challenges. Brandt also warned the amendments may have unintended consequences for juvenile offenders because the existing "Romeo and Juliet" protections built into KSA 21-56-10 and 21-56-11 were not amended in consistent fashion and could expose youths to more serious charges.

The committee heard questions from senators who asked whether the bill covers AI-generated depictions of adults (the reviser confirmed the breach-of-privacy amendment in Section 3 does) and whether conduct beyond sexual depictions, such as AI images portraying violence or other criminal acts, would be covered (proponents and the reviser said the bill is limited to sexualized or privacy-related depictions as drafted).

Committee members also heard proponents cite an FBI release and a federal-funded Butner study that proponents said found a high proportion of offenders who possessed child sexual material had also reported contact offenses; Barrett and Kegay cited a figure of about 80–85 percent in their testimony but described it as self-reported in study participants. The bill sponsor and proponents said they added the obscenity standard to reduce constitutional vulnerability and align with existing Supreme Court precedent.

No vote was taken during the hearing; the committee limited conferee testimony to four minutes and invited additional questions from members. The hearing record includes proponent written testimony and opponent written testimony. Next steps were not decided during the session.