Committee hears bill to ban distribution of AI-generated obscene images of children and add sentencing enhancements

Sponsor Representative Brad Thomas presented House Bill 171 as a two-part proposal: (1) create a crime prohibiting distribution of computer-generated obscene material depicting children and (2) add enhanced sentencing when an artificial intelligence system is used in certain offenses. "They scrape images of real children, right off Facebook," Thomas said while describing how datasets can be trained to produce realistic child images.

Thomas told the House Judiciary Committee the measure amends Title 17 to add enhanced penalties for crimes committed using artificial intelligence, and it defines "child" in the new text as a person under 16 for the purposes of the computer-generated offense. He said the intent is to close a perceived loophole in current law that could allow people to evade child-exploitation charges by pointing out that an image is synthetic.

Lawmakers and witnesses probed several points of contention: the statutory definition of a child (the bill uses under-16 in the draft, while multiple speakers noted other statutes and federal practice use 18), whether the measure would unintentionally criminalize consensual peer-to-peer juvenile conduct, and whether existing statutes already allow prosecution of some AI-generated content. Maisel Lynn Gertin of the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers urged caution on sentencing for minors, asking the committee to consider misdemeanor-level dispositions for children and to avoid automatic felony consequences for typical teenage conduct.

Prosecuting counsel Robert Smith said the bill targets a different fact pattern than so-called Romeo-and-Juliet situations because the bill is aimed at people who prompt or assemble sexualized images via AI rather than cases where two teenagers consensually exchange images. District Attorney Herb Cranford said he supported the bill's intent but raised concerns that the current draft focuses narrowly on computer-generated images of children and may omit other obscene material now covered by existing statute 16-12-80.

Representatives also discussed the constitutionality of repealing and replacing the state's obscenity statute. Members referenced an Eleventh Circuit decision that had struck down an advertising provision in the older statute; committee counsel said the older statutory scheme had constitutional issues that needed attention.

No roll-call or final committee vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript. Representative Thomas told members he would work with counsel and return with revisions; later he said the bill would go to an internal drafting group (referred to in the hearing as "Skunk Works") for further work.

Clarifying details drawn from the hearing: the bill would (as drafted) define "child" for the new computer-generated offense as under 16; it would add an aggravated felony or enhanced sentencing tier where an AI system was used; sponsors and opponents debated an age exception for juveniles and whether existing child-exploitation statutes already permit prosecutions of synthetic images; committee members cited prior case law (Eleventh Circuit) raising constitutional issues with portions of the prior obscenity statute.