HB 2299 updates Oregon’s law on unlawful dissemination of intimate images, commonly known as nonconsensual pornography or “revenge porn.” The bill makes it a crime to knowingly disclose an image of another person’s intimate parts or sexual conduct with intent to harass, humiliate, or injure, when the person knows or reasonably should know the subject does not consent and the disclosure causes the required harm. The offense remains a Class A misdemeanor in most cases, but becomes a Class C felony for a person with a prior conviction under the same statute.
The bill also expands and clarifies key definitions. It specifies that “image” includes not only traditional photos, films, and recordings, but also digitally created, manipulated, or altered depictions that are reasonably realistic. It defines “disclose” broadly to include transfer, publish, distribute, exhibit, advertise, and offer. The measure also adds definitions for “information content provider” and “interactive computer service,” and it preserves exceptions for law enforcement, medical/scientific/educational uses, legal proceedings, reporting unlawful conduct, lawful public-interest disclosures, certain voluntary public displays, commercially created images with consent, and service providers hosting third-party content.
The bill’s impact is to strengthen Oregon’s ability to prosecute the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, including AI-generated or altered images that are realistic enough to cause harm. It affects people who create, share, or publish such images, while also providing explicit protections and carve-outs for legitimate public, legal, and platform-hosting activities. By amending ORS 163.472, it modernizes the statute to better address digital and manipulated media.
Overall sentiment around the bill appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. It passed the House and Senate unanimously, and the committee votes were also unanimous, indicating broad bipartisan agreement on the need to update the law and protect victims of image-based abuse. The lack of recorded opposition or committee transcript debate suggests the measure was viewed as a straightforward public-safety and privacy update.
The main points of potential contention, reflected in the text rather than in the recorded votes, are the breadth of the definition of “image,” the intent and harm standards, and the scope of the exceptions for lawful public-interest disclosures and online service providers. Those provisions appear designed to balance victim protection with free-speech, journalism, and platform-liability concerns.
HB 2299 amends ORS 163.472, Oregon’s statute on unlawful dissemination of intimate images, to broaden the law’s reach to include reasonably realistic digitally created, manipulated, or altered depictions. It also clarifies the criminal elements, preserves the misdemeanor/felony structure, and adds statutory definitions and exceptions that affect law enforcement, courts, medical and educational institutions, online platforms, and individuals who disclose intimate images.
The bill appears to have enjoyed unanimous and bipartisan support at every recorded stage. Committee votes in both chambers were 8-0 and 6-0, and floor votes were 56-0 in the House and 30-0 in the Senate. That voting pattern suggests the measure was widely seen as a needed update to protect privacy and address modern forms of image-based abuse, with no visible organized opposition in the available record.
No formal opposition is reflected in the votes or available transcripts, but the statute itself shows the likely areas of policy sensitivity: how broadly to define “image,” whether realistic AI-generated or manipulated depictions should be covered, and how to preserve exceptions for lawful public-interest disclosures, legal proceedings, and interactive computer service providers. Those issues typically raise concerns about overbreadth, free expression, and platform liability, even though they did not appear to generate recorded controversy here.