I have concerns with this (proposed) bill (which messes with the "child porn" definition), which again, seems to be a bad "deepfake" bill idea. This time in the name of "saving the children" (which is always a red flag).
First off, this appears to be one of those narrow-minded tunnel-vision bills where someone thinks of *one particular thing*, but doesn't think of all the bad ways in which it could be applied. For instance, it uses a "reasonable person would regard it to be" test. But, then, an over-zealous prosecutor might squint at something which is quite unlikely to be that (i.e. a more realistic art style), and argue that it is. The only limiting term is "computer-generated", but then, that doesn't even have to imply the use of "AI" at all, does it?
It is also Unconstitutional, and could probably be dealt with in better ways. For instance, in the more narrow form of "sexual harassment" (which is probably what someone is thinking of here). That wouldn't involve inconvenient court battles, or human rights violations. I think that for the most part, people aren't really lining up to be evil for the sake of being evil, and I don't think "War on Drugs" type ideas are proportionate or effective.
So, I think this is a bad bill, and legislators should not advance it.
