AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 97-29-64, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO INCLUDE MATERIAL THAT HAS BEEN EDITED, ALTERED OR OTHERWISE MANIPULATED FROM ITS ORIGINAL FORM IN THE DEFINITION OF "VISUAL MATERIAL" FOR THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF DISCLOSING INTIMATE VISUAL MATERIALS; TO AMEND SECTION 97-29-64.1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROHIBIT A PERSON FROM CREATING, RECORDING OR ALTERING VISUAL MATERIAL DEPICTING ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL WITH THE DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL'S INTIMATE PARTS EXPOSED OR ENGAGED IN SEXUAL CONDUCT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE DEPICTED INDIVIDUAL; TO EXEMPT A DEVELOPER OR PROVIDER OF TECHNOLOGY FROM LIABILITY SOLELY FOR PROVIDING OR DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGY USED BY ANOTHER PERSON OR ENTITY TO CREATE, RECORD OR ALTER PROHIBITED VISUAL MATERIAL; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
Impact
If enacted, this bill will directly influence existing Mississippi statutes pertaining to intimate visual materials under Section 97-29-64 and Section 97-29-64.1 of the Mississippi Code of 1972. It introduces clear definitions and specifications on what constitutes an offense under these laws, thus broadening the scope of behavior considered illegal. This legislative effort reflects a growing recognition of privacy rights in the digital age and the need to protect individuals from potential harms arising from non-consensual exposure of intimate material.
Summary
House Bill 1115 is an amendment aimed at reinforcing privacy laws concerning intimate visual materials in Mississippi. The bill seeks to redefine 'visual material' to encompass any edited, altered, or manipulated content, which intensifies the strict penalties for those unlawfully disclosing or creating such materials without the consent of the depicted individuals. The bill stems from concerns about the non-consensual sharing of explicit images and aims to provide legal recourse to victims while deterring potential offenders.
Contention
Notably, the bill also includes provisions that grant immunity to technology developers from liability concerning the misuse of their products for the creation of prohibited visual material. This particular aspect has raised concerns among advocates who argue that it may inadvertently facilitate abuses by allowing tech companies to evade accountability. The law does not provide defenses under the premise of consent if the depicted individual created or transmitted the material themselves, which could lead to ambiguous legal interpretations and challenges for victims seeking justice.