Alaska Legislature: Senate Community & Regional Affairs, 4/9/26, 1:30pm

I call this meeting of Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee to order. Let the record reflect that it is 1:31 p.m. on Thursday, April 9th. Present in the room today are Senator Yunt, Senator Greg Jackson and myself, Vice Chair Dunbar.

Chair Merrick and Senator Olson are at finance this afternoon, and so I'll be chairing the meeting until such time that they are out and able to come down.

So we have three items on our agenda.

First is Senate Bill 247, generated obscene child sex abuse material by Senator Keel. This is our third hearing on the bill. We've previously taken invited public testimony.

Are there opening comments from the sponsor? Is there someone from the sponsor's office here, if you'd like to come forward? I should note that we do have a quorum to conduct business and our intention is to move some of these bills out today.

So, uh please put yourself on the record and uh make any opening comments you might have.

Uh for the record, uh James Oglesby's staff to Senator Jesse Kiel.

Uh the senator is in finance right now, but he thanks you for your work on the bill and we look forward to seeing it in the next committee.

Very good. Thank you. There is a proposed committee substitute. Madam

Senator Gray-Jackson, do you have a motion?

Certainly, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I move to adopt the proposed committee substitute for Senate Bill 247, Work Draft 34-LS1470-Backslash-N, by Nixon-Nickel, as our working document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman. And I will object for the purposes of discussion.

Um do we have someone here to p um

uh to present the proposed changes, to explain them for us?

For the record, Zosha Hazelton, staff to Chair Merrick and the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee.

The committee's substitute for Senate Bill 247, version N, makes only a few substantive changes at the recommendations of the Department of Law and Public Safety.

New Section 4 adds to the list of conduct considered unlawful exploitation of a minor.

At the recommendation of DPS,

we've added a number eight causing a child to come into contact with semen.

As the list of conduct is referenced in several other sections of statute,

new sections were added to the bill to incorporate this language into those references.

New section 21 adds possession and distribution of generated CSAM to the list of registrable offences,

a request made by the made to the committee by the Department of Law during a prior hearing. Additionally at the request of the committee we have added in section 7 that the crime of distributing CSAM requires knowingly distributing.

All other changes in the CS are to conform to these additions.

Thank you, Ms.

Hazelton. I should note for the record we have, and for my colleagues we have, online for questions Nathan Bucknell, Sergeant-at-Arms State Troopers,

Claire Radford from Legislative Legal,

and Casey Schroeder, an attorney with the Criminal Division at the Department of Law.

Are there any is there any discussion about the C_S_ or the changes being made?

I will remove my objection. Is there any objection to adopting the C_S_

Okay. Seeing none, the C_S_ for Senate Bill 247 is adopted. Is there any further discussion on Senate Bill 247?

Seeing none, uh Senator Grey Jackson, may I have a motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move Senate Bill 247, version 34, -LS as in sugar, 1470\N as in nickel, from committee with individual recommendations accompanying fiscal notes and authorize Legislative Legal Services to make conforming changes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Is there an objection?

Seeing none, 247 is moved from committee. I think, Ms.

Hazelton, I will

Hold off on having you sign that until the end. Actually here, I'm going to take a brief at ease.

Back on the record. I'm going to take a brief at ease so we can sign the paperwork and get this bill moved on to the next committee.

Brief at ease.

On the record, our next item is the first hearing on House Bill 47,

the companion to SB 247 by Representative Vance.

Representative, if you and your staff would like to come forward and put yourself on the record and begin your introduction,

highlighting the current differences between HB 47 and SB 247.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. For the record, I'm Representative Sarah Vance of House District 6, and this is my legislative aide.

Through the chair, for the record, my name is Isaiah Smarto, staff for Representative Sarah Vance.

Thank you so much, I'm I'm so pleased that uh you have adopted important changes to the prior legislation and moving that along that is uh the original bill that we developed in House Judiciary a few years ago in a bipartisan manner.

And uh it is it is the it will be when upon passage the first

um law that deals with A_I_ on any form, and so it is highly important. But you'll see the similarities in this bill. This bill uh grew from the the companion that you saw on the House floor by adopting several changes. But I just wanna kind of brief briefly go over uh some of those.

What this bill does is it criminalizes the creation or distribution of forged digital likenesses and AI-generated sexual depictions without consent,

including explicit images involving minors.

The legislation responds directly to the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and digital manipulation technologies that are now being used to exploit minors and victimize Alaskans in ways our current statutes do not address.

Specifically what House Bill 47 does is it strengthens criminal law to criminalize the generated child sexual abuse material,

it updates adult deep fake and forged digital likeness crimes,

creates civil penalties for facilitating CSAM,

adds social media and minor protection provisions,

and then makes conforming amendments to positions of trust such as teachers and school bus drivers.

Specifically, it

adds distribution of forged digital likenesses, and this is with someone who has the intent to defraud, harass,

threaten,

or intimidate.

This must involve an actual identifiable individual.

This is like the adult version of the CSAM.

The original bill that you just moved out deals specifically with children,

and it involves children that

You may not be able to identify an actual child for generated images.

This one in the distribution of forged digital likenesses must include an actual identifiable adult,

and this puts it as a class A misdemeanor. The next thing it does is distribution of generated sexual depictions.

distribution that may result in physical, emotional,

relational or economic harm.

This is someone who did not approve of their images being distributed and it includes any AI generated images.

So this is what we often refer to as revenge porn.

A few years ago the legislature added revenge porn to our domestic violence statutes but this adds the AI generated type of images that can so

So easily be manipulated now through technology and that puts it as a class a misdemeanor.

The next thing that it does the bill does is adds harassment in the first degree for any published or distributed photos of a person engaged in a sexual act and then there's many other conforming pages that include the harassment so this is

Where the original CSAM has a lot of provisions that say this is causing harm to a person.

On the adult side,

we needed to fit it into the harassment statutes. And so you will see that. And there are many, many pages in this bill that is essentially conforming language that puts all the other statutes in alignment.

House Bill forty seven strengthens enforcement by clearly defining the crime of distributing generated sexual depictions. Under this bill, a person can be charged if they distribute manipulated sexual images of another individual without authorisation, especially when that distribution may cause physical, emotional, reputational or economic harm. It also aligns this conduct with harassment in the first degree when they're published or shared. This makes um it urgent as a scale of realism in A_I_ content.

content.

They're often indistinguishable from real victims forcing law enforcement to spend critical time sorting the difference between a real image and one that is not.

That strain overwhelms resources,

blurs enforcement,

and fuels further exploitation.

So this adds another layer of accountability.

When we get back to the use of generated child sexual abuse material,

specifically there's been data that shows a significant, a frightening 26,000 percent rise in the use of AI videos of child sexual abuse from 2024 to 2025. And also the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children,

the cyber tip line received 485,000 reports.

of AI-generated CSAM in 2025 up from only 67,000 reported in 2024.

And this is talking specifically about CSAM, but in the use of the adult images that are now generated,

we have an exponential growth because apps make it so easy to be able to do this.

And perpetrators increasingly are fine-tuning the models to generate new imagery of known victims and of the abuse of children.

And this was a discussion that we had heavily at the original creation of the CSAM bill and House Judiciary is that we wanted to make sure that if a perpetrator saw, you know, the famous neighborhood soccer star and was making an AI.

generated image that they couldn't say, oh, but it this is fake, it's not it's not an actual victim.

And and so what this bill does is says that we don't have to make an actual victim.

And that's why we used the miller test under the obscenity laws.

uh to to so that it doesn't run into first amendment restrictions but we also uh that's why there's clarity on the adult side that that those images are involved with a real individual because you have to prove harm some of the original conversations of what should we address when it comes to this and we thought about the situations of people um

to—

creating images or sound bites based upon a person's voice that could cause them to lose their marriage or lose their job.

You know, there were restrictions when it comes to things like libel.

And with AI,

the explosion of being able to manipulate something to look so realistic,

we wanted to protect individual Alaskans on that.

But at the time we narrowed it to the CSAM, however the House floor amendments

brought back those provisions to protect the adults against the deep fakes and the use of creating not only the images but also the recordings that can manipulate and be believable and use against them.

And I think this is important because we're looking at just everyday aspect of people's lives,

how it would impact their employment,

how it could impact their relationships and their marriages that they hold dear. And it does have an exemption for

satire, parody,

things like that, that we would expect,

education,

that are already included in our statute.

So this would be someone who is intentionally seeking to do harm against these individuals,

whether they're children or adults.

But I do have, this was a part of my original CSAM bill,

a five-minute video,

if it is the will,

Mr.

Chairman,

that talks about the incredible harm the Internet Watch Foundation has been working on this issue.

you globally.

And they talk about just the level of of the crimes that are being committed and it is five minutes Mr Chairman, but it speaks to this in a way that I cannot. So

if we have time, if if it is up to your will, we can proceed or I can skip over the video, Mr Chairman.

Brief it easy.

I will

Back on the record. Alright, well if we can get the I_T_ to work, we can watch the video. There we go. Thank you.

This is a little girl between seven to ten years old, and it's a very realistic, extremely violent image. It's the worst of the worst when it comes to child sexual abuse imagery.

The deeply disturbing image being described has been made with artificial intelligence.

In the last six months, the Internet Watch Foundation has found more web pages containing child abuse images and videos made with AI than in the previous twelve months. The illegal content isn't just hidden on the dark web. Ninety nine percent has been found on sites easily accessible by the public.

It might be that somebody has used some software and typed in prompts and they've said I want to see a young girl I want to see her in this position doing these particular things and then the software will generate that image for you or alternatively somebody could take an image that already exists of a child being sexually abused and then using software they can tweak that image to show the children in a in a different

different scenario.

It's up to these people to get that material removed.

You are really seeing what exists in the minds of the worst people out there because they're now able to create what they're thinking of.

Incredibly highly realistic situations that I don't want to describe because they're really disturbing,

really awful and would upset you if I were to go into much detail about them.

We're not able to view or broadcast any criminal imagery of children.

The image on Tamsin's screen has been heavily redacted to ensure nothing is viewed by me,

the crew or any members of the public.

For most people looking at these images you wouldn't believe that they're not real photographs because they are so realistic.

Although these images are fake,

the victims are real. These are some of the things charities hear from victims of this

this type of abuse.

The accounts are based on stories of real young people but their words have been voiced by actors.

I'm so scared. I don't know what to do.

Someone I met online has used some sort of deep fake AI thing to make a porn video with my face on it.

It looks so real.

I'm worried what will happen if my friends find out.

They must have taken the pictures from my Instagram and edited them.

The pictures are really convincing.

I'm so scared they'll send them to my parents.

Parents,

boys at school made fake videos of loads of the girls,

people think that they saw me naked and I have to see these boys every day.

Matter has just announced new measures to try and fight sextortion on Instagram,

including a feature that automatically blurs nude images sent in direct messages.

The tech is so easy to use that school pupils are creating these images too. In data shared exclusively with Channel 4 News,

six percent

This happened

of more

to my

than

daughter's

three peers thousand

in-home.

teachers found that their students have used AI to create sexually explicit images of their classmates.

Childline's a counselling service for under 18s and sees first-hand how this abusive material affects children.

The impact is the same for young persons, whether the images are created by themselves or an abuser has created them.

With AI an abuser doesn't have to have a sexualised image of a child because they can create those images themselves.

An abuser can then kind of go down the traditional reasons of extorting children by

asking for it for for more images or or or asking for money.

There's also evidence that some people looking at this material can go on to commit abuse to children offline.

One psychologist who works with offenders told me that some people can become desensitised to it,

leading them to seek out real photographs or physical interactions with children to get the same level of sexual gratification.

While charities like the IWF and Childline deal with the consequences of

The consequences of this material, they say it needs to be stopped at the source. The nspcc told us, developers who create ai software and social media sites where images are often shared have abjectly failed to put safeguards in place to prevent their products from being exploited by offenders, and that the government must put child protection at the heart of its ai strategy.

child abuse,

A Home Office spokesperson said:

"We're working closely with law enforcement partners,

the IWF,

technology experts and other child protection charities to identify more perpetrators exploiting these new technologies and bring them to justice.

This AI generated material is only part of the huge amount of child abuse content online,

but as the technology improves,

fears are that this is just the start of a disturbing new trend.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Very good. Um are there any is that the end of your presentation representing events?

I have a couple more items that uh of the amendments that were included on in this bill on the house floor.

Okay.

Um just as a quick reference uh next slide.

There are only five states in D.C. remaining who have not adopted the CSAM laws.

When I first started this legislation,

we could have been the fifth state.

And so uh I am so excited that this legislation um is getting the attention in the Senate that it deserves.

So uh one of the other uh provisions that is included in House Bill forty seven adopted by amendment on the House floor is the Alaska Social Media Regulation Act. This p specific amendment has received a lot of attention because it includes user age verification and parental consent.

sent. Parental access to the minor's account.

Advertising to minor uh users is prohibited.

Content targeting minor users is prohibited. Addictive features for minors are prohibited. There's a curfew for minors and then allows for private uh right of action uh through the Attorney General. I would like to note that there have been First Amendment concerns mentioned as with any time we l seek to regulate social media.

In order to I've looked at what it would take for the states to act upon these types of regulations. And it we must prove that there is a legislative intent to safeguard the public and very narrowly tailor it to fit the needs. And so it's important that we are very clear in the legislative record what we're doing that we are not violating First Amendment rights.

But that we are seeking to provide the rights to privacy and also protections for Alaskans and especially children. This social media regulation act is meant to safeguard children and give tools to parents that can provide access if they so choose to minors, but also allow them to regulate that.

So in overall,

this bill is about bringing Alaska law up to speed.

Technologies outpace our statutes and AI.

Generated images can create realistic images of children and adults without,

that's creating gaps in law enforcement. This bill closes those gaps.

And to review the differences between the prior bill that you just heard,

House Bill 47 includes the original CSAM,

but it also covers adult deepfakes revenge porn,

the forged digital likeness.

The social media restrictions and then penalties for companies. It creates civil penalties for organizations that facilitate the generation of CSAM to the tune of a million dollars per offense.

So I'm open for questions and appreciate the consideration of this committee.

Thank you Representative Vance.

I think we have a question from Senator Gray Jackson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Vance, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. We really appreciate your continued advocacy to protect our children.

Um during your testimony you mentioned the Miller test. Can you explain what what is the Miller test? 'Cause I don't know, maybe others don't either. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Okay.

Thank you. Through the Chair, Representative Gray-Jackson.

I originally had a slide talking about the Miller test,

but knew that you wanted to go with the differences. But what the Miller test,

it deals with the obscenity laws.

Originally, when we brought this topic up in House Judiciary,

every time we would want to prosecute for these crimes,

the First Amendment would come up.

And it was actually the current chair of House Judiciary Representative Gray who brought the Miller test and said we should apply this as the standard that puts these crimes under obscenity so it doesn't conflict with our First Amendment. And the obscenity has three merits.

Does it have purring and interest?

Would a regular person consider this to be obscene content with a child who is a minor doing certain things that children don't normally do?

That would be a standard.

Does it fit an educational, scholastic,

you know, artistic purpose?

And if it doesn't fit that, then clearly it's obscene. And then I apologize.

There's one more that I'm forgetting off the top of my head right now, looking if it's outlined in the bill.

My lifeline,

the Casey Schroeder from Department of Law can do that.

But that's why we used that is that it's a reasonable person would say, no, this isn't normal behavior for a child.

This isn't artistic.

And make sure that under adult pornography,

it is classified by the courts as having a First Amendment protection.

And we wanted to make sure that we would not conflict with those laws.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Greg Jackson.

I'll note that we have a CS here, I believe, that we're going to move to adopt.

Senator Young, do you have any questions before we do that?

Yeah, thank you through the chair to Representative Vance.

I was going to ask her there. First of all, thank you.

I'm grateful for your work in this area, as with Senator Kiel. I'm excited to see what you guys come out of with this, and I hope we can get some.

get something passed here soon.

So in regard to the First Amendment rights,

in regard to the curfew, right, I'm not an attorney.

Has there been anybody test that in a court yet?

I would like to see a social media curfew for kids.

I mean, I'd be fine with that, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's legal.

So I was just going to see if you could dive a little deeper on that and give us your thoughts.

Thank you through the chair,

Senator Yent.

If I remember correctly,

this entire provision was passed in Idaho,

I believe.

And it has been going through that process of the test to see if it can withstand the courts.

But I know Alaskans, there's been polling done around the regulation of social media for minors. And Alaskans have a, it's kind of a mixed bag about what they feel overall.

Alaskans want us to do something to help protect minors on social media,

but the curfew, um I don't know if that one specifically has has gone through the court scrutiny, but perhaps our our Department of Law has more information on that.

We do have uh K.C. Schroder uh online. And then also

Uh Clare Radford, uh from Leslie of Legal, would you like to ask that question either of them, Sarah yet?

Yeah if if they heard the question and they wouldn't mind chiming in, that'd be great.

Um let's start with Ms Schroeder. Um Ms Schroeder, if you heard the question

Oh. Oh she's there. For some reason I thought you were offline. Very good. Come on up.

I think she heard the question.

For the record,

Casey Shredder, Senior Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division at the Department of Law. Um Mister Chairman I have to apologise that uh the curfew aspect is in the social media uh portion of the bill which is a civil, uh th it's a civil statute and I'm a criminal attorney and I am not the person to answer that question unfortunately.

Understood well if you wanna remain there for a moment just in case there are other questions on this bill and we'll ask uh Miss Radford and I and

Ms. Radford's here to talk about two forty seven, not forty seven.

She worked with them. She worked with them.

Oh, but she worked on both of them. And she does have a memo uh that is in the packet on social on the social media provision. Very good. Uh Ms. Radford, did you hear uh Senator Yunt's question?

She's not online anymore. Okay, apologies. She was here for two forty seven and not forty seven. And so I don't believe we have anyone from Legislative Legal on two forty seven or on forty seven, excuse me. Uh but I apparently there is a memo in our packets on that provision and as Representative Vance indicated, that was done by amendment on the floor. And so it is

not here we go.

Yeah, it doesn't

it's a rather large it's a uh it's a rather long memo uh Senator Yunt, but um

I think it's a worthy question.

Um

I will dig into this on my own,

Okay.

through the chair.

You know the question's on the record and we'll work through the process as we continue.

Thank you, sir.

Very good. Thank you. Senator Gregg-Jackson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Um my um staff who happens to be my intern, she did a summary of the of the um memo.

Um we don't have to deal with it now, but I'm happy to share it with the committee members after the meeting's over. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very good. Thank you, Senator Gregg-Jackson. Sen thank you, Senator Gregg-Jackson's intern.

Um so thank you Ms. Schroeder, I think we can go back to the presenters. And at this time I think we will move the C_S_ unless um Representative Vance, if you have any thoughts before we do so.

Thank you Mr Chairman. For the record, this is Representative Sarah Vance and and um

I would just like to note that uh this bill passed the House floor with unanimous consent. And the the changes that I mentioned about the forged digital likeness, uh the deepfakes, the um the million dollar civil penalty for organizations, and also the social media ban were amendments that were adopted by the House floor.

I encourage uh adoption of all four except for the social media ban simply because of the Constitution's con concerns encouraging you as the Senate to be able to further scrutinize this because uh there is interest for Alaskans for us to take it a look at it, but across the

Mm-hmm.

country we have to we've

keep running into the First Amendment concerns and also there is a growing desire to hold big tech accountable.

I know that Congress is working on that, but we want to make sure that we're doing our duty to protect Alaskans and so once again I just want to thank all of you here in the Senate for prioritizing this legislation this year because it's long overdue.

Thank you. Um Senator Great Jackson, can I have a motion?

Certainly, Mr.

Chairman, thank you. I move to adopt the proposed committee substitute for House Bill forty seven, work draft thirty four backslash A. Larry Shigars zero three three four backslash H as in Henry as our working document. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Great Jackson. I will object for purposes of discussion. Uh and if we could swap out here Ms.

Hazelton will explain the changes.

Thank you for the record, Sorcha Hazelton,

Thank you.

staff to Chair Merrick and the Senate Community and Regional Affairs Committee.

The committee substitute for House Bill forty seven version H makes many changes but it primarily does the following: given the constitutional concerns raised, the sections regarding social media used by minors have been removed from the bill. There are also provisions that ha they were also the provisions that have received the most opposition in public testimony given the legal concerns raised we have removed the civil penalty

penalties section from the bill.

The additions to SB 247 have also been made to this bill so that the two bills match.

These do result in a title change.

The chair felt the foundation of the bill was too important that for the sake of expediency we should not have it, the social media provisions may weigh down the C-CAMP provisions of the bill and so we eliminated those so that they might be able to

Consider them more either in a future legislature or in the Judiciary Committee where they could deep dive more into the time than this committee may have in the remaining portions of session.

Very good. Uh are there any questions for Ms Hazleton?

Not seeing any, I'm gonna remove my objection and is there further objection to adopting the C_S_

Seeing none, the CS for House Bill forty seven is adopted. So to reiterate before I open public testimony, uh just reminding folks that H_B_ forty seven no longer includes social media provisions of the recommendation of legislative legal. With that, I'm going to open public testimony on this bill.

Is there anyone in the building in the room rather who would like to testify to this bill?

All right, with that we'll go online.

I see we have two folks online.

We'll start with Rose Feliciano, Executive Director of the Northwest TechNet.

Ms.

Feliciano,

could you please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon,

Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Rose Feliciano. I am here on behalf of TechNet.

We are here in support of HB 47.

Certainly appreciate the opportunity to have worked with Representative Vance and Senator Kiel on this measure.

We supported the bill,

HB 47, as it went to the floor.

to the floor and appreciate the CS for moving the provisions that raise constitutional concerns.

With Representative Vance, our concern was primarily making sure that

Are our members who have teams dedicated,

we call them search and destroy,

to try to identify,

prevent,

and report CSAM that they're not caught up and considered distributing?

You know, and similar if somebody sends an image over email that the email provider is not considered distributing.

and making sure that those type of provisions are included.

We certainly appreciate all the work that has been going on in this.

I will just make one comment on the question of curfews being constitutional.

I thought that question was asked.

Other states have adopted

cell phone bans they have varied most of them focus on during school hours I am not familiar with anybody who's had it you know like from midnight to 6 a.m but I don't think those have been have had challenges and so I just wanted to provide that information if it was if it was helpful but I just wanted to say I appreciate the work that the committee's been doing

representative Vance has been a wonderful champion and appreciate your attention to this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms. Feliciano.

I don't see any questions.

We will go now to Ms.

Ramey Spring.

I actually don't know if it's Ms.

or Mr.

Mr.

Spring?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, I apologize.

Mr.

Spring,

No worries.

you please put yourself on the record and begin your testimony?

My name is Rennie Spring from the Sterling community.

Good afternoon, Chair members of the Community and Regional Affairs Committee.

Excuse me. Thank you for your time today.

Please do pardon me if my phone goes silent for a moment or two while reading out my statement as I've been dealing with a lung infection may need to cough while speaking.

Um,

I currently oppose the current and amended wording of House Bill 47.

Along with Senate Bill 247, I know that's not really being discussed,

generated obscene child sex abuse material.

After reading House Bill 47 in its entirety,

I can't support it as it stands,

specifically because of wording in Section AF 1161-122 as a whole.

along with subsection A2 in both bills,

and remove wording in section AF 1161-127-A2 of House Bill 47.

While I have issues with both bills for the same reasons,

from this point forward I'll be referring to House Bill 47,

but please note that my concerns extend to both proposals.

Before moving forward,

let me state wholeheartedly that I believe children need to be protected.

That's not in dispute.

I thank Representative Nance for her work to get this on the books.

Real children are real victims,

whether that's through imperson interaction or through victimization through various media.

Looking at Section 11-61-22A,

concerning possession of generated obscene exam.

The qualifications of obscenity under the NOAH test are listed out under this section to help guide and define when an obscene generated CSAM image is.

But the Supreme Court has ruled in Family v.

Georgia that mere private possession of obscene materials in one's own home cannot be criminalized.

It was found unconstitutional.

They ruled that obscenity in one's own home is protected under the First Amendment.

Additionally,

the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in Ascroft v.

the Free Speech Coalition that virtual child porn,

including computer-generated images,

are protected under the First Amendment,

specifically concerning distribution and possession of virtual child pornography that appears but does not depict real children.

I would posit then that possession of realistic,

generative AI content that does not involve a real identifiable person under the age of 18 cannot be prosecuted and is actually protected under the First Amendment.

This is even clarified in a statement by the FBI that AI-generated image,

not an AI-generated image, is illegal only when it contains the use of a real child.

Given all of this,

the current wording of this bill,

should it become law,

will be grounds for litigation.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court did find in Stanley v.

Georgia that obscenity is not protected concerning distribution.

If legislatures would like the obscenity section to remain,

I suggest it be moved into Section AF 1161-121,

where it would appropriately be applied concerning distribution of AI-generated CSAM.

Many times in the discussion of this bill,

I've heard the phrases may cause,

possibly will,

etc.

used by law enforcement agencies,

advocacy groups,

and writers of the bill pertaining to these types of images causing someone to escalate their behavior,

moving someone from viewing images to actually harming a real child.

This is in direct opposition to what I have been personally told by multiple probationary officers,

sex offender treatment therapists, and I've been told that I'm not going to be able to do anything about it.

and psychologists.

The statistics consistently show that someone who engages in CSAM is overwhelmingly less likely to sexually engage with an actual child,

while those persons who do sexually engage with a child overwhelmingly tend to not have to engage or tend to not engage in CSAM.

This being the case,

is it not advisable for someone to have a victimist outlet through generative AI in the privacy of their own home that does not harm a real child?

Let me make that clear.

I am advocating for not harming real children.

The Ninth Circuit Court even reasoned that the government cannot prohibit speech merely because of its tendency to persuade its viewers to engage in illegal activity.

And that decision was specifically upheld by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v.

Free Speech Coalition.

As I've been following this bill,

I've heard it said in hearings and discussions that the bill should pass so that law enforcement officers don't have to whittle through this material to find out what is real and what isn't.

To me, this makes it sound an awful lot like law enforcement agencies.

The bill sponsors and those that support the bill are more worried about successful prosecutions and less concerned with finding real victims.

When this material is found,

isn't it law enforcement officers'

duty to find these real world victims and give them justice?

Just because something is illegal doesn't make it go away.

For all those images that are being produced that haven't used a real child in their making,

where is the victim?

With that in mind, this bill would also make it illegal to produce any sort of realistic sexual content of something resembling a child.

Section AS 1161.22a2 reads,

regardless whether an actual child is used,

gender of AI has the ability to produce images that look like a child,

but in no way use a real child or depicts an actual minor.

I am all for prosecuting someone if an image is generated using trained data from actual CCM or using the likeness of an actual child under the age of 18.

But if the image generated didn't involve an actual real identifiable child,

there is no victim.

And the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with me.

The image created doesn't have an actual victim,

meaning it doesn't depict or use an actual identifiable child.

It's completely fictitious.

Explain to me how that should be punishable by prison and a lifetime of red mark on someone's back.

Originally House Bill 47 in Section AF 1161.127.82.

had a verification line concerning the federal depiction of a minor that read,

representation that is indistinguishable from an identifiable child under the age of 18,

excuse me, child under 18 years of age, but it was removed,

thus furthering the bill's broadness to include generative AI that does not include real children.

Again, by wording these bills this way, it sounds like lawmakers are more interested in putting people away rather than finding and protecting actual victims.

Lastly,

passing this bill will not stop the flow of AI-generated TCM, and law enforcement will still have to deal with it.

I know it won't make things easier for them,

but whether this bill passes or not,

law enforcement will have to deal with this issue.

Unlocking someone away and ruining their lives because they produce an image of a fake person while not using a real child is far from that goal.

I urge legislatures to really think about their motivation for supporting this part of the bill and amend them accordingly.

Is the purpose to prosecute people who are actually harming children,

or is it actually just to lock up more people because they looked at something the general public considered gross?

Removing the line in section AF 11.161.122A2,

regardless whether an actual child was used.

Shifty obscenity coercion and CAF 1161-121 concerning distribution and add-in portion concerning identifiable children and you'll have my full support.

I think this bill does need to be a pass.

I think it just has some work to do.

House Bill 47 along with Senate Bill 247 should reflect prosecuting people

who are creating real-world victims,

protecting identifiable individuals,

and preventing prosecution of someone for a fictitious and victimist depiction.

Let me restate.

All right, Mr.

I want

Sprague,

every protection

I'm

for

sorry, I'm going

to every

interrupt you here.

I apologize.

Usually we set a two-minute, but there were only two people, and so I was hoping we could, that that wouldn't be necessary,

last

but we do need to move on to another bill.

sentence.

My last sentence.

Okay.

Yep, last sentence.

I'm all for protecting people,

real individuals.

Very good. Thank you very much for your testimony,

Mr.

Spring.

I don't see anyone else online and I don't see any questions either.

So with that, I'm going to close public testimony.

All right.

Is there any further question or discussion about this bill before I look to the will of the committee?

Seeing none,

Senator Grage-Jackson may have a motion.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chair.

I move House Bill 47, version 34.

hyphen L_S_O_ three three four backslash H_ as in Harry from committee with individual recommendations, accompanying fiscal note, and title change resolution, and authorised legislative legal services to make any conforming changes. Thank you Mr Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Jackson.

Is there any objection?

Seeing none, H.B. forty seven is moved from committee, we'll take an ad is to sign the paperwork.

Back on the record, is 2:25 or so. Um final item on our agenda is Senate Bill 259, Property Tax Assessment Increases, by Senator Bjorkman. This is our third hearing on the bill. During the previous hearing we've taken invited and public testimony.

Online for questions we have Sandra Mauler, Director of the DCCED, Division of Community and Regional Affairs rather.

And we have in the air.

With us, uh Miss Sophia Bieber and Senator Jesse Bjorkman.

So uh first up we have a proposed committee substitute.

Senator Ray Jackson, may I have a motion please?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I move to adopt the proposed committee substitute for Senate Bill 259,

work draft 34- Larry Shigar 1249,

backslash W as in wood as our working document.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Senator Reid. Jackson,

I'll object for purposes of explanation. Senator, would you or your staff please put yourself on the record and explain the changes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and members of the Committee. For the record,

my name is Savaya Bieber,

staff to Senator Bjorkman.

SB-259 changes from version H to version W are as follows.

Section 1 has been amended to adjust the allowable annual increase for residential property assessments to not less than three percent.

greater than 10%. The section also adds a provision requiring the assessor to increase property value every 10 years based on the estimated open market value and that is all.

Thank you. Are there any questions about this change?

Okay, seeing none,

I will remove my objection.

Is there further objection to the CS?

Seeing none, that CS is adopted. Uh there is one amendment which is distributed to the Committee, the start of the meeting. Um it is my own amendment and I was to be the vice chair to move that amendment. I'm going to go off the record for a second.

I will call the committee to order at two twenty six p.m. One amendment was distributed to the committee members at the start of the meeting. Mr. Vice Chair, is there a motion?

Yes, I move Amendment 1.

I'll object for explanation,

Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment affects page two, lines one through three. It deletes the owned and occupied requirements and changed it just to occupied as housing.

So this is trying to expand just from owner occupied and single family to multifamily housing as well so they could.

reap these benefits.

We consulted with Led's Legal the best way to do that because there are different classifications of residential property in different parts of the state and they came back with this fairly simple phrase occupied as housing.

So this would allow renters, one would hope if the property owners pass the benefit on to the renters,

allow renters to also benefit from this change in our assessment statute.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Dunbar. Senator Bjorkman,

comments?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The amendment does deviate away from the spirit of the bill, but I understand why the maker of the amendment desires it to be so.

It does make a significant change away from the existing.

practice of municipalities as they offer exemptions that are known as homestead exemptions to people who live in their homes for more than half the year. That is typical of a residential exemption that is offered by localities, and so that is a deviation.

Thank you, Senator Bjorkman.

Questions or comments from committee members?

Seeing none, I will remove my objection. Is there further objection?

Hearing none, amendment is adopted.

Is there further discussion on Senate Bill two fifty nine?

Seeing none, Mr.

Vice Chair?

Oh, I'm sorry,

I don't have the, sorry about that. Um.

Madam Chair,

I move Senate Bill 259,

version 34-1 Lima Sierra 1249 backslash W from committee as amended with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note and authorize legislative legal services to make conforming changes.

Thank you. Is there objection?

Hearing none,

Senate Bill 259 is moved from committee.

This concludes our agenda for the afternoon.

At 2.29 p.m. we are adjourned.