Conference committee tentatively adopts New Hampshire‑style disclosure for synthetic‑media election bill; scope dispute remains
Loading...
Summary
A House–Senate committee of conference on S.23 agreed to adopt a concise New Hampshire‑style disclosure for deceptive synthetic media and accepted several Senate edits, but members sharply disagreed over whether protections should cover any depicted individual or only political candidates; counsel warned of a California court ruling raising First Amendment risk.
A House–Senate committee of conference met to reconcile S.23, the bill governing synthetic media in elections, and tentatively agreed to replace the bill’s existing disclosure language with a concise New Hampshire‑style notice while leaving a major policy choice unresolved.
Representative Matt Birong, chair of the House Government Operations and Military Affairs committee, opened the meeting by framing the session as a conference to reconcile changes between the two chambers. Counsel Rick Savile circulated a side‑by‑side document showing the Senate’s proposed amendment and the House‑passed text and walked members through the edits.
Why it matters: S.23 would require disclosures for synthetic media that is deceptive or fraudulent and that could influence elections or ballot measures. The committee’s choices about definitions and scope will determine which ads, impersonations or AI‑generated clips must carry a warning — and how defensible that requirement is in court.
What the committee agreed on
Counsel recommended, and members broadly endorsed for further drafting, a New Hampshire‑style disclosure as a model for the bill’s notice requirement. As an example read to the group, Rick Savile cited the New Hampshire wording: "This image, video, audio has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur." He said the formulation is concise and captures the deceptive element the committee wants to flag.
The Senate’s edits to the definitions also drew general acceptance on two points: replacing references to a "political candidate" with the term "individual" throughout the definitions and changing one adjective from "authentic" to "realistic" to emphasize perception by a reasonable viewer. Counsel summarized the change: "Words in green were added by the senate," and he noted the Senate removed the House’s earlier narrow exception that would have allowed a candidate to consent to deceptive AI media.
Accessibility and presentation rules the Senate added won support. The amended text would require on‑screen disclosures to appear in a font size "easily readable by the average viewer" and include accessibility language for individuals with disabilities; for audio‑only deceptive media the disclosure must be spoken in a clear pitch and pace. The committee also discussed a practical timing rule for audio disclosures when recordings run longer than two minutes.
Unresolved policy dispute: 'individual' vs. 'political candidate'
The principal unresolved question was whether the law should apply only to political candidates and their campaigns or to any depicted individual. House members repeatedly emphasized free‑speech concerns, arguing a broader definition risks chilling parody, satire and noncommercial expression and could be harder to defend.
Senators and other members countered that materially false synthetic media featuring non‑candidates or public figures (members discussed examples such as celebrity impersonations or fabricated statements attributed to well‑known figures) can still unduly influence elections or ballot questions and should be covered. Several speakers pressed for narrowing the restriction by focusing on "materially false" statements and preserving explicit exceptions for parody and satire.
Legal defensibility
Counsel warned the committee about existing litigation. "I have one court decision to go on . . . in this California district court that said the California law was unconstitutional," Rick Savile told members, advising caution because expanding the law’s scope could increase First Amendment scrutiny even if the state’s interest in protecting elections is compelling.
Next steps
Members asked counsel to draft replacement language for section 2032 reflecting the committee’s tentative agreement to use the New Hampshire disclosure structure and the agreed edits; the committee marked section 2032 "favorable" for the conference report. The group scheduled a reconvening for the next day to finalize remaining language, with the outstanding scope question (individual vs. candidate and explicit mention of "public question") left for further negotiation.
The conference committee did not record a formal roll‑call vote during this session; members signaled agreement by consensus and counsel said he could prepare revised text for review at the next meeting.
