A BILL to amend and reenact § 18.2-374.3 of the Code of Virginia, relating to use of communications systems to facilitate certain offenses involving children; exception.
HB1027 amends Virginia Code § 18.2-374.3, which criminalizes using communications systems or other electronic means to facilitate certain offenses involving children. The bill retains the existing prohibitions on using computers, the Internet, bulletin boards, mail, or other communications systems to procure or promote the use of a minor for unlawful sexual activity, and on adults using those systems to solicit children under 15 with lascivious intent for sexual acts, exposure, or enticement into a vehicle, room, house, or other place.
The measure is framed as an amendment to the child-exploitation communications statute and appears to add an exception to the general prohibition, though the provided text is truncated before the full exception language is shown. As written, the bill would affect the scope of criminal liability under § 18.2-374.3 and related child-sex-offense statutes by clarifying when communications-based conduct involving minors is punishable and when an exception may apply.
HB1027 would amend and reenact § 18.2-374.3 of the Code of Virginia, a criminal statute addressing the use of communications systems to facilitate offenses involving children. Its practical effect would be on prosecutors, defendants, and courts applying child-exploitation and solicitation laws, especially where conduct occurs through electronic communications, the Internet, or other remote media. Because the text references an exception, the bill could narrow or clarify the reach of the existing offense depending on the final language adopted.
The available legislative history suggests the bill did not advance cleanly and was instead continued to the next session in the House Courts of Justice Committee by voice vote. That procedural outcome indicates the measure was not ready for final committee action and may have faced unresolved questions. No committee transcript or recorded roll-call vote is provided, so the overall sentiment can only be characterized as cautious or unsettled rather than clearly supportive or opposed.
The main point of contention appears to be the scope of the proposed exception to an otherwise broad child-protection communications offense. Supporters of an exception would likely argue for clarifying or limiting criminal liability in specific circumstances, while opponents would likely worry that any carve-out could weaken enforcement against online grooming, solicitation, or other child-exploitation conduct. Because the bill text is truncated and no transcripts are available, the precise policy dispute is not fully visible, but the tension is between preserving strong protections for minors and avoiding overbroad criminalization of communications-based conduct.