Criminal Prohibition on Intentional Disclosure of Nonconsensual Intimate Visual Depictions
Section 2 · Sec. 2 ·
What this chapter is about
This part makes some posts a crime. It covers real nude images put online without a yes. It covers fake ones a machine made. It sets fines and jail time. It puts these rules inside an old law.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:”
The section operates by amendment. The existing subsection (h) of section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 is redesignated as subsection (i), and a new subsection (h) is inserted after subsection (g). Everything else recorded from subsection (a) of this section is text this Act puts into that statute.
What the document actually says
“Section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended-- (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and (2) by inserting after subsection (g) the following:”
That sentence, in plain words
This law changes an old law from 1934. It moves one part down. It adds a new part in its place.
What this is about
The old law is the Communications Act. The new part goes inside it. The rest of part 2 is the words that go in.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The term `consent' means an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization made by an individual free from force, fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or coercion.”
The inserted subsection defines consent for its own purposes: an affirmative, conscious and voluntary authorization by an individual, free from force, fraud, duress, misrepresentation or coercion. Section 4 of this Act carries the same definition into the rest of the Act.
What the document actually says
“The term `consent' means an affirmative, conscious, and voluntary authorization made by an individual free from force, fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or coercion.”
That sentence, in plain words
Saying yes must be real. The person must choose it freely. They must know they chose it.
What this is about
A yes does not count if force made it happen. It does not count if lies made it happen. It does not count if fear made it happen.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The term `digital forgery' means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.”
The inserted subsection defines digital forgery. It reaches an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual made through software, machine learning, artificial intelligence or other computer generated or technological means, including by adapting or altering an authentic depiction, where a reasonable person viewing it as a whole could not tell it from an authentic depiction of that individual.
What the document actually says
“The term `digital forgery' means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, that, when viewed as a whole by a reasonable person, is indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual.”
That sentence, in plain words
A fake image is one a machine made. It looks so real that most people could not tell.
What this is about
The image can be built from nothing. It can also be a real photo that was changed. Either one counts.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The term `identifiable individual' means an individual-- ``(i) who appears in whole or in part in an intimate visual depiction; and ``(ii) whose face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic (including a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature) is displayed in connection with such intimate visual depiction.”
The inserted subsection sets a two part test. The person must appear in whole or in part in the intimate visual depiction, and their face, likeness or other distinguishing characteristic, which the definition says includes a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature, must be displayed in connection with it.
What the document actually says
“The term `identifiable individual' means an individual-- ``(i) who appears in whole or in part in an intimate visual depiction; and ``(ii) whose face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic (including a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature) is displayed in connection with such intimate visual depiction.”
That sentence, in plain words
The person must show up in the image. Something must mark it as them.
What this is about
That mark can be a face. It can be a birth mark. It can be any other sign people would know.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The term `intimate visual depiction' has the meaning given such term in section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (15 U.S.C. 6851).”
Two of the inserted definitions do not state a meaning of their own. Intimate visual depiction takes its meaning from section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, and interactive computer service takes its meaning from section 230. Neither of those provisions is indexed here, so nothing recorded says what either provides.
What the document actually says
“The term `intimate visual depiction' has the meaning given such term in section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (15 U.S.C. 6851).”
That sentence, in plain words
This law does not spell out what a private image is. It points to another law for that.
What this is about
The other law is from 2022. The words online service point to a different law again. This site has not indexed either one.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “means”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The term `minor' means any individual under the age of 18 years.”
The inserted subsection defines minor as any individual under the age of 18 years. The definition draws the line between the offenses in paragraphs (2)(A) and (3)(A) and those in paragraphs (2)(B) and (3)(B).
What the document actually says
“The term `minor' means any individual under the age of 18 years.”
That sentence, in plain words
A minor is anyone under 18.
What this is about
The rules come in two sets. One set is for adults. The other is for kids under 18.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual who is not a minor if-- ``(i) the intimate visual depiction was obtained or created under circumstances in which the person knew or reasonably should have known the identifiable individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy;”
The first offense the inserted subsection creates. Using an interactive computer service in interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable adult is unlawful where the depiction was obtained or created in circumstances carrying a reasonable expectation of privacy that the person knew or reasonably should have known of. Three further conditions, recorded separately, must be met as well, and the exceptions in subparagraph (C) apply.
What the document actually says
“it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual who is not a minor if-- ``(i) the intimate visual depiction was obtained or created under circumstances in which the person knew or reasonably should have known the identifiable individual had a reasonable expectation of privacy;”
That sentence, in plain words
You cannot post a private nude image of an adult online. This holds when the image came from a private moment.
What this is about
The person must have known the moment was private. Or they should have known. Other tests must be met too.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “requires”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“``(ii) what is depicted was not voluntarily exposed by the identifiable individual in a public or commercial setting; ``(iii) what is depicted is not a matter of public concern; and ``(iv) publication of the intimate visual depiction-- ``(I) is intended to cause harm; or ``(II) causes harm, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, to the identifiable individual.”
The remaining conditions on the offense in paragraph (2)(A), all of which must hold alongside the privacy condition. What is depicted must not have been voluntarily exposed by the individual in a public or commercial setting, must not be a matter of public concern, and the publication must either be intended to cause harm or in fact cause it. The subparagraph names psychological, financial and reputational harm.
What the document actually says
“``(ii) what is depicted was not voluntarily exposed by the identifiable individual in a public or commercial setting; ``(iii) what is depicted is not a matter of public concern; and ``(iv) publication of the intimate visual depiction-- ``(I) is intended to cause harm; or ``(II) causes harm, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, to the identifiable individual.”
That sentence, in plain words
The person must not have shown this in public. It must not be news. The post must be meant to hurt, or must hurt.
What this is about
Harm can mean pain in the mind. It can mean lost money. It can mean a ruined name.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual who is a minor with intent to-- ``(i) abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the minor; or ``(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
The second offense. Using an interactive computer service in interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable minor is unlawful where it is done with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass or degrade the minor, or to arouse or gratify anyone's sexual desire. The privacy, public exposure, public concern and harm conditions attached to the adult offense are not repeated here. The exceptions in subparagraph (C) apply.
What the document actually says
“it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish an intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual who is a minor with intent to-- ``(i) abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the minor; or ``(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
That sentence, in plain words
You cannot post a private nude image of a child online. Not to shame them. Not for sexual thrill.
What this is about
This rule is shorter than the one for adults. It asks only what the poster meant to do.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: law enforcement agencies, intelligence agencies of the United StatesHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to-- ``(i) a lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of-- ``(I) a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State; or ``(II) an intelligence agency of the United States;”
The first of the exceptions to both offenses in paragraph (2). Lawfully authorized investigative, protective or intelligence activity of a Federal, State or local law enforcement agency, or of a United States intelligence agency, is outside the prohibition.
What the document actually says
“Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to-- ``(i) a lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of-- ``(I) a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State; or ``(II) an intelligence agency of the United States;”
That sentence, in plain words
These rules do not cover police work. They do not cover spy work either.
What this is about
The work must be allowed by law. The agency can be Federal, State, or local.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“a disclosure made reasonably and in good faith-- ``(I) to a law enforcement officer or agency; ``(II) as part of a document production or filing associated with a legal proceeding; ``(III) as part of medical education, diagnosis, or treatment or for a legitimate medical, scientific, or education purpose;”
The second exception to both offenses in paragraph (2). A disclosure made reasonably and in good faith is outside the prohibition when made to law enforcement, in a document production or court filing, or for medical education, diagnosis or treatment or a legitimate medical, scientific or education purpose. The same list adds reporting unlawful content or unwelcome conduct, acting under a legal, professional or other lawful obligation, and seeking support after receiving an unsolicited depiction.
What the document actually says
“a disclosure made reasonably and in good faith-- ``(I) to a law enforcement officer or agency; ``(II) as part of a document production or filing associated with a legal proceeding; ``(III) as part of medical education, diagnosis, or treatment or for a legitimate medical, scientific, or education purpose;”
That sentence, in plain words
Some honest uses are fine. You can hand the image to police. You can file it in a court case. Doctors and teachers can use it in their work.
What this is about
The person must act in good faith. That means honestly, and for a real reason. Asking for help after being sent one is on the list too.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“a person who possesses or publishes an intimate visual depiction of himself or herself engaged in nudity or sexually explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code)”
The last exceptions to the offenses in paragraph (2). A person who possesses or publishes a depiction of himself or herself is outside the prohibition, as is a disclosure reasonably intended to assist the identifiable individual, and as is a publication that constitutes child pornography under section 2256 of title 18, United States Code, or a depiction described in section 1466A(a) or (b) of that title. Those provisions of title 18 are cited, not indexed here.
What the document actually says
“a person who possesses or publishes an intimate visual depiction of himself or herself engaged in nudity or sexually explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code)”
That sentence, in plain words
You can post a nude image of yourself. That is not covered here.
What this is about
Help meant for the person in the image is not covered either. Some images fall under other laws. This site has not indexed those laws.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable individual who is not a minor if-- ``(i) the digital forgery was published without the consent of the identifiable individual;”
The third offense. Using an interactive computer service in interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable adult is unlawful where it was published without that individual's consent. The three further conditions match those on the adult offense in paragraph (2)(A): what is depicted must not have been voluntarily exposed in a public or commercial setting, must not be a matter of public concern, and publication must be intended to cause harm or must cause it.
What the document actually says
“it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable individual who is not a minor if-- ``(i) the digital forgery was published without the consent of the identifiable individual;”
That sentence, in plain words
You cannot post a fake nude image of an adult. Not if they never said yes.
What this is about
The tests here match the ones for real images. Only the first test is new. It turns on the yes.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable individual who is a minor with intent to-- ``(i) abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the minor; or ``(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
The fourth offense, and the mirror for digital forgeries of the offense in paragraph (2)(B). Publishing a digital forgery of an identifiable minor with intent to abuse, humiliate, harass or degrade the minor, or to arouse or gratify anyone's sexual desire, is unlawful. The exceptions in paragraph (3)(C) apply.
What the document actually says
“it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable individual who is a minor with intent to-- ``(i) abuse, humiliate, harass, or degrade the minor; or ``(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person.”
That sentence, in plain words
You cannot post a fake nude image of a child. Not to shame them. Not for sexual thrill.
What this is about
A fake image counts the same as a real one here. What matters is what the poster meant to do.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“a person who possesses or publishes a digital forgery of himself or herself engaged in nudity or sexually explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code)”
Paragraph (3)(C) repeats for digital forgeries the list paragraph (2)(C) sets for authentic depictions: law enforcement and intelligence activity, good faith disclosures, a disclosure reasonably intended to assist the identifiable individual, self published material, and publications constituting child pornography under section 2256 of title 18, United States Code, or a depiction described in section 1466A(a) or (b) of that title.
What the document actually says
“a person who possesses or publishes a digital forgery of himself or herself engaged in nudity or sexually explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code)”
That sentence, in plain words
You can post a fake nude image of yourself. That is not covered here.
What this is about
The list of free passes here matches the earlier list. Police work, honest reports, and help for the person are all on it.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Federal courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Any person who violates paragraph (2)(A) or (3)(A) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
The penalty for the two offenses involving adults, the authentic depiction offense in paragraph (2)(A) and the digital forgery offense in paragraph (3)(A): a fine under title 18, United States Code, imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both.
What the document actually says
“Any person who violates paragraph (2)(A) or (3)(A) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
That sentence, in plain words
Break the adult rule and you can be fined. You can be locked up for up to 2 years. You can face both.
What this is about
This covers real images and fake ones alike. A judge picks the fine, the jail time, or both.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Federal courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Any person who violates paragraph (2)(B) or (3)(B) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.”
The penalty for the two offenses involving minors, the authentic depiction offense in paragraph (2)(B) and the digital forgery offense in paragraph (3)(B): a fine under title 18, United States Code, imprisonment of not more than 3 years, or both.
What the document actually says
“Any person who violates paragraph (2)(B) or (3)(B) shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.”
That sentence, in plain words
Break the rule about kids and you can be fined. You can be locked up for up to 3 years. You can face both.
What this is about
The jail time here runs one year longer than the adult rule.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: Federal courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“the fact that the identifiable individual provided consent for the creation of the intimate visual depiction shall not establish that the individual provided consent for the publication of the intimate visual depiction”
How paragraphs (2) and (3) are to be read. The individual's consent to the creation of an intimate visual depiction does not by itself establish consent to its publication.
What the document actually says
“the fact that the identifiable individual provided consent for the creation of the intimate visual depiction shall not establish that the individual provided consent for the publication of the intimate visual depiction”
That sentence, in plain words
Saying yes to an image being made is not saying yes to it being posted.
What this is about
These are two different choices. One does not stand in for the other.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall not”Who acts: Federal courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“the fact that the identifiable individual disclosed the intimate visual depiction to another individual shall not establish that the identifiable individual provided consent for the publication of the intimate visual depiction by the person alleged to have violated paragraph (2) or (3), respectively.”
The second rule of construction. That the identifiable individual disclosed the depiction to another individual does not by itself establish consent to publication by the person alleged to have committed the offense.
What the document actually says
“the fact that the identifiable individual disclosed the intimate visual depiction to another individual shall not establish that the identifiable individual provided consent for the publication of the intimate visual depiction by the person alleged to have violated paragraph (2) or (3), respectively.”
That sentence, in plain words
Sending an image to one person is not saying yes to it being posted.
What this is about
A person may share an image with someone they trust. That choice does not open it to the world.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Any person who intentionally threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (2) for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion, or to create mental distress shall be punished as provided in paragraph (4).”
Intentionally threatening to commit either offense in paragraph (2), for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion or creating mental distress, draws the penalties paragraph (4) sets: up to 2 years where the offense involves an adult and up to 3 years where it involves a minor.
What the document actually says
“Any person who intentionally threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (2) for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion, or to create mental distress shall be punished as provided in paragraph (4).”
That sentence, in plain words
Threatening to post a real private image is a crime too. The same penalties apply.
What this is about
The threat must be meant to scare, force, or upset. The image need not ever be posted.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Any person who intentionally threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (3)(A) for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion, or to create mental distress shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 18 months, or both.”
A threat to commit the digital forgery offense involving an adult carries its own penalty rather than the penalty in paragraph (4): a fine under title 18, United States Code, imprisonment of not more than 18 months, or both.
What the document actually says
“Any person who intentionally threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (3)(A) for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion, or to create mental distress shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 18 months, or both.”
That sentence, in plain words
Threatening to post a fake image of an adult can lead to a fine. It can lead to up to 18 months locked up.
What this is about
This term is shorter than the one for posting it. The threat has its own line in the law.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: any personHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Any person who intentionally threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (3)(B) for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion, or to create mental distress shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 30 months, or both.”
A threat to commit the digital forgery offense involving a minor carries a fine under title 18, United States Code, imprisonment of not more than 30 months, or both.
What the document actually says
“Any person who intentionally threatens to commit an offense under paragraph (3)(B) for the purpose of intimidation, coercion, extortion, or to create mental distress shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, imprisoned not more than 30 months, or both.”
That sentence, in plain words
Threatening to post a fake image of a child can lead to a fine. It can lead to up to 30 months locked up.
What this is about
30 months is two and a half years. That runs longer than the same threat about an adult.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Federal courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The court, in imposing a sentence on any person convicted of a violation of paragraph (2) or (3), shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that the person forfeit to the United States-- ``(i) any material distributed in violation of that paragraph;”
On sentencing a person convicted under paragraph (2) or (3), the court must order forfeiture to the United States, on top of any other sentence and irrespective of State law. Three things are forfeited: the material distributed, the person's interest in property constituting or derived from gross proceeds of the violation or traceable to it, and any personal property used or intended to be used to commit or facilitate the violation.
What the document actually says
“The court, in imposing a sentence on any person convicted of a violation of paragraph (2) or (3), shall order, in addition to any other sentence imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that the person forfeit to the United States-- ``(i) any material distributed in violation of that paragraph;”
That sentence, in plain words
A judge must take the images away. That comes on top of any other penalty.
What this is about
The judge also takes money made from the crime. Things used to do it are taken as well.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall apply”Who acts: Federal courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), with the exception of subsections (a) and (d), shall apply to the criminal forfeiture of property under subparagraph (A).”
The procedure for that forfeiture is drawn from section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act, other than its subsections (a) and (d). That statute is cited, not indexed here, so nothing recorded says what the procedure is.
What the document actually says
“Section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 853), with the exception of subsections (a) and (d), shall apply to the criminal forfeiture of property under subparagraph (A).”
That sentence, in plain words
The steps for taking the property come from a drug law. Two parts of it are left out.
What this is about
This site has not indexed that law. So it does not say what those steps are.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “shall”Who acts: Federal courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“The court shall order restitution for an offense under paragraph (2) or (3) in the same manner as under section 2264 of title 18, United States Code.”
The court must order restitution for an offense under paragraph (2) or (3), in the same manner as under section 2264 of title 18, United States Code. That statute is cited, not indexed here.
What the document actually says
“The court shall order restitution for an offense under paragraph (2) or (3) in the same manner as under section 2264 of title 18, United States Code.”
That sentence, in plain words
A judge must order the guilty person to pay the harmed person back.
What this is about
The way to work out the sum comes from another law. This site has not indexed that law.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “may not be construed”Who acts: Federal courtsHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the application of any other relevant law, including section 2252 of title 18, United States Code.”
The inserted subsection is not to be read as limiting the application of any other relevant law. Section 2252 of title 18, United States Code, is named as an example. That statute is cited, not indexed here.
What the document actually says
“Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the application of any other relevant law, including section 2252 of title 18, United States Code.”
That sentence, in plain words
This new part does not push other laws aside. They still apply.
What this is about
The law names one of them as an example. This site has not indexed it.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Section 223(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``or (d)'' and inserting ``, (d), or (h)''.”
Subsection (b) of this section amends section 223(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, striking the words or (d) and inserting , (d), or (h). The effect on the words of that provision is to add the new subsection (h) to a list it names. What that provision says is not indexed here.
What the document actually says
“Section 223(e)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(e)(1)) is amended by striking ``or (d)'' and inserting ``, (d), or (h)''.”
That sentence, in plain words
One line of the old law gets a small change. The new part is added to a list it holds.
What this is about
The old line named some parts of the law. Now it names the new part too. This site has not indexed that line.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
The document says “is amended”Who acts: CongressHow: statuteSec. 2 in the PDF
What the document says
“Subsection (i) of section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223), as so redesignated by subsection (a), is amended”
Subsection (c) of this section makes what it labels a technical and conforming amendment. The subsection that subsection (a) moved from (h) to (i) gains a heading: the word Definitions, followed by a dash, is inserted before the words For purposes of this section.
What the document actually says
“Subsection (i) of section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223), as so redesignated by subsection (a), is amended”
That sentence, in plain words
The part that got moved gets a small fix.
What this is about
A heading is put in front of it. The heading is the word Definitions. The law calls this change technical.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.
Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, Public Law 119-12, sec. 2, 139 Stat. 55 (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-119publ12/html/PLAW-119publ12.htm
This page
“Criminal Prohibition on Intentional Disclosure of Nonconsensual Intimate Visual Depictions,” Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act, section 2. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/tools-address-known-exploitation-by-immobilizing/section-2/ (retrieved August 26, 2026).
Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.
What This Page Covers, and What It Leaves Out
Each thing the section does: the amendment it makes to section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934, the definitions the inserted subsection sets, the four offenses it creates, the exceptions to them, the penalties, the rules of construction, the threat offenses, forfeiture and restitution, and the two further amendments in subsections (b) and (c).
The redesignation of the old subsection (h) is recorded once, as part of the amendment instruction, rather than as a change of its own. Nothing is recorded about the wording of section 223 outside the words this Act inserts.
The section works by amending section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934, and that statute is not indexed here, so nothing recorded says what section 223 provided before this Act or reads as now. Several other provisions are cited and not indexed: section 230 of that Act, section 1309 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, section 413 of the Controlled Substances Act, and sections 1466A, 2252, 2256 and 2264 of title 18, United States Code.
