House Passes ‘Revenge Porn’ Bill, Sending It to Trump for Approval

The House just passed legislation called the “revenge porn” bill that would criminalize posting or threatening to post AI-generated pornographic images of identifiable individuals. Is this a well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed approach a recipe for disaster?

First of all, we need to define our terms. What exactly constitutes an “identifiable” person in an AI-generated image? The bill’s vagueness on this point is a legal minefield waiting to happen. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that an image bears a passing resemblance to a public figure. Does that make it criminal? The potential for abuse here is staggering.

Now, let’s examine the facts. The bill passed 409-2 in the House, with only Representatives Massie and Burlison having the intellectual consistency to vote against it. This overwhelming bipartisan support doesn’t make the bill any less problematic. Remember, facts don’t care about your feelings, even when those feelings are shared across the aisle.

Let’s move on to point number two: the First Amendment implications. By definition, this bill is a restriction on free speech. The idea that the government should be policing AI-generated content is absurd on its face. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of both technology and constitutional law.

Statistically speaking, the harm caused by actual revenge porn is significant. But conflating that with AI-generated images is a logical fallacy. We’re essentially criminalizing thought crimes here, folks. The left claims this is about protection, but it’s really about control.

Now, let’s say, hypothetically, that this bill becomes law. The unintended consequences would be severe. It would chill innovation in AI technology, stifle artistic expression, and create a legal quagmire that would tie up our courts for years. This is a textbook example of legislative overreach.

In conclusion, while protecting victims of genuine exploitation is a noble goal, this bill is not the answer. It’s a poorly conceived, constitutionally dubious attempt to legislate away a complex technological issue.