SB 604 creates a new criminal offense in Missouri for the disclosure or threatened disclosure of an “intimate digital depiction,” which is a realistic image created or altered through digital manipulation that shows an identifiable person’s intimate body parts or sexually explicit conduct. The bill is aimed at nonconsensual deepfake-style sexual imagery and similar digitally altered depictions, and it defines key terms such as “depicted individual,” “digital depiction,” and “sexually explicit conduct.”
Under the bill, a person commits the offense if they disclose such a depiction with intent to harass, annoy, threaten, alarm, or cause substantial financial or reputational harm, or if they do so knowing or recklessly disregarding that the disclosure will cause physical, emotional, reputational, or economic harm. The bill also criminalizes threats to disclose such depictions under similar mental-state standards. Penalties range from a class E felony for threatening disclosure to a class D felony for actual disclosure, with class C felony treatment for repeat violations or for disclosures likely to affect government proceedings or facilitate violence. The bill also states that disclaimers do not provide a defense and includes protections for interactive computer service providers that act in good faith to restrict access to such content.
The bill would add a new section, 573.570, to Chapter 573 of the Missouri Revised Statutes and expand the state’s criminal law to address digitally manipulated intimate imagery. It would affect individuals who create, share, or threaten to share such content, while also clarifying that online platforms are not criminally liable merely for taking voluntary good-faith steps to limit access to the material or for providing technical tools to do so.
Because no committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge formal sentiment. Based on the bill’s structure and caption, the measure appears to be framed as a response to privacy, harassment, and emerging deepfake harms, suggesting generally protective intent toward victims of nonconsensual digital sexual imagery.
The main points of potential contention are likely to involve free speech and platform-liability concerns, as well as how broadly the law reaches digital manipulation, intent, and recklessness standards. Another possible issue is the felony grading, especially the class C enhancement for repeat conduct or depictions that could affect government proceedings or facilitate violence. Supporters would likely emphasize victim protection and deterrence, while critics may focus on overbreadth, evidentiary challenges, and the risk of criminalizing borderline or satirical digital content.
SB 604 would add section 573.570 to Missouri’s criminal code and create a new felony offense for the disclosure or threatened disclosure of intimate digital depictions. It would give prosecutors a specific statutory tool to address nonconsensual deepfake pornography and similar digitally altered sexual images, while also setting out definitions, mental-state requirements, penalty levels, and limited protections for interactive computer service providers that act in good faith to restrict access to such content.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. The bill’s caption and text suggest a policy goal of protecting individuals from harassment, reputational harm, and privacy violations caused by manipulated intimate images, which indicates a generally victim-protective and enforcement-oriented approach.
Likely areas of contention include First Amendment and free-speech concerns, the scope of criminal liability for digital content creation and sharing, and whether the bill’s definitions are broad enough to capture harmful deepfakes without sweeping in lawful expression. Platform and internet-service liability is another likely issue, though the bill attempts to limit exposure for providers acting in good faith. Supporters would likely prioritize privacy, anti-harassment, and anti-exploitation protections, while skeptics may question overcriminalization and the practical enforcement of intent and harm standards.