Even the New York Times put out an article saying it requires an "identifiable minor" (one of the articles they put out prior to that was more ambiguous).
Follow
First, the New York Times assumed it was so sweeping that deepfakes would be protected, then they came up with sweeping language the other way, then they gravitated towards something more accurate.
To be fair, I have to give them credit for putting the work into their reporting to fix that.
