AN ACT relating to possession or viewing of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor.
Summary
HB92 amends Kentucky’s criminal statute on possession or viewing of matter portraying a sexual performance by a minor. The bill expands the offense to cover not only material depicting an actual minor, but also a computer-generated image of a minor. It also clarifies that the viewing offense applies only to deliberate, purposeful, and voluntary viewing, and not to accidental or inadvertent exposure.
The bill preserves existing exceptions for law enforcement investigations, criminal or civil litigation, and certain school-related or parental/guardian viewing situations. It also sets felony penalties based on the age of the minor depicted: a Class D felony when the person knows the minor is under 18, and a Class C felony when the person knows the minor is under 12. In addition, anyone convicted under the section must serve at least 85% of the sentence before being eligible for probation or parole.
Impact
HB92 would amend KRS 531.335 to broaden Kentucky’s child sexual exploitation law to include computer-generated images of minors, not just actual minors, and to make the viewing offense more explicit by limiting it to intentional conduct. The bill would affect criminal defendants, prosecutors, law enforcement, schools, and courts by defining the scope of prohibited material and reinforcing sentencing consequences, including mandatory service of 85% of the sentence before release eligibility.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text alone and the absence of committee testimony or recorded votes, the measure appears to be framed as a child-protection and criminal-enforcement bill with a straightforward punitive purpose. The language suggests a strong policy emphasis on preventing exploitation of minors and closing loopholes involving synthetic or computer-generated depictions. No recorded discussion or vote history is available here to indicate opposition or support beyond the bill’s text.
Contention
The main potential points of contention are the inclusion of computer-generated images of minors, which could raise questions about the reach of the statute and how such images are identified or proven in court, and the felony penalties tied to knowledge of the depicted age. Another possible issue is the 85% service requirement, which limits judicial discretion and parole/probation eligibility. Because no committee transcripts or votes are provided, no specific lawmakers or stakeholder groups are identified as raising these concerns.