House passes first substitute HB 71 to criminalize nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, with penalties narrowed to misdemeanors on first offense

The Utah House on Feb. 13 passed first substitute House Bill 71, a measure that makes the intentional, nonconsensual distribution of intimate images a criminal offense when the distributor knows the depicted person did not consent and when emotional harm results. The bill passed 68–6 and will be transmitted to the Senate.

Representative Polson, sponsor of the bill, told the chamber the measure targets ‘‘intentional and purposeful harming of individuals and families’’ and described cases in which victims suffered job loss, social ostracism and severe emotional distress. ‘‘This is something that destroys lives and destroys families,’’ Polson said in summation, urging lawmakers to address harms that civil remedies do not adequately redress.

Floor debate focused on three main concerns: how courts would prove the sponsor’s required intent, whether the law would impinge on First Amendment protections, and the appropriate penalty for offenders. Representative Greenwood pressed the sponsor on penalties, asking, ‘‘What is the penalty on this, your proposed legislation again?’’ Polson said the original draft proposed a third-degree felony but acknowledged concerns and supported amendments to narrow punishment.

The House adopted Amendment 1, language the sponsor said was requested by the Sentencing Commission, defense counsel and prosecutors to make the statutory language consistent with other code sections. Representative Hall then moved Amendment 2 (and a substitute adding the phrase ‘‘separate incident’’), which changed sentencing so a first conviction is a class A misdemeanor and a later, separate conviction may be charged as a third-degree felony. Hall described the change as a compromise that retains protections for victims while addressing members’ concerns about over-criminalization.

Backers argued the bill is narrowly drafted to apply to adults and to situations where the distributor ‘‘knowingly or intentionally’’ causes emotional harm; the statute also excludes depictions of persons under 18 and preserves existing child‑sexual‑abuse statutes for minors. Opponents contended that proving intent and distinguishing single versus multiple offenses could lead to litigation and prosecutorial discretion concerns. Representative Stratton and others cautioned about possible unintended effects on technology providers and urged careful drafting to avoid sweeping in innocent third parties.

The bill’s sponsor said the measure was carefully narrowed between first and second substitute drafts and that the state’s existing voyeurism and harassment laws do not adequately address intentional public distribution of intimate images. After further floor discussion and the adopted amendments, the House approved the first substitute HB 71, 68 yes, 6 no.

The House action makes distribution of intimate images a criminal offense under the revised statutory language; the bill as amended requires proof of intent to cause emotional distress, knowledge that the depicted person did not consent, and proof that harm occurred. The measure now moves to the Senate for consideration.