COMPUTER-GEN SEXUAL IMAGES
HB3028 expands Illinois law on non-consensual dissemination of private sexual images to expressly cover computer-generated images and videos, including content that is made, produced, or altered by electronic, mechanical, or other means. The bill amends the Criminal Code of 2012 so that the definition of “image” includes photographs, films, videotapes, digital recordings, and synthetic or manipulated media, and it carries that expanded definition into the Removal of Private Compromising Images Act.
The bill keeps the core offense the same: a person commits the crime when they intentionally disseminate an identifiable image of another person engaged in a sexual act or with intimate parts exposed, obtained under circumstances where a reasonable person would expect privacy, and without consent. It also preserves existing exemptions for lawful criminal investigations, reporting unlawful conduct, voluntary public or commercial exposure, and lawful public purposes, while maintaining the Class 4 felony penalty and related forfeiture provisions. By broadening “image,” the bill is aimed at modern deepfake-style or AI-generated sexual imagery as well as altered digital media.
HB3028 would update two Illinois statutes—the Criminal Code of 2012 and the Removal of Private Compromising Images Act—so that synthetic, computer-generated, or manipulated sexual images are treated the same as traditional photos or videos for purposes of non-consensual dissemination and image-removal remedies. The practical effect is to give victims a clearer legal path when intimate images are created or altered digitally rather than captured by camera, and to extend criminal liability and takedown-related protections to newer forms of digital abuse. It would affect individuals who create or share such images, as well as platforms and service providers only to the extent already limited by existing liability protections.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive and preventative, reflecting a legislative effort to keep Illinois law current with emerging AI and digital-image technology. The bill’s framing suggests concern about privacy harms and sexual exploitation through synthetic media, with the sponsor seeking to close a gap in existing law. No recorded opposition or divided vote is available in the provided context.
The main policy issue likely to arise is how broadly the expanded definition of “image” will reach, especially as it applies to computer-generated or altered content that may not involve a real photograph. Potential points of contention include First Amendment concerns, proof problems in showing identity, intent, privacy expectations, and lack of consent when the image is synthetic, as well as whether the law could sweep in parody, artistic, or other non-abusive uses. The bill’s exemptions for lawful investigations, reporting unlawful conduct, public exposure, and lawful public purposes appear designed to address some of those concerns, while service-provider liability limits protect interactive computer services and telecommunications providers from being held liable solely for third-party content.