Prohibit conduct involving computer-generated child pornography

Brief

What this bill does

If it passes, what actually changes?

This is a criminal-code bill. It expands Nebraska's child pornography crimes to cover computer-generated and AI-made images, and raises penalties for repeat offenders.

• Redefines "child pornography" in section 28-1463.02 to include computer-generated visual depictions.
• "Computer-generated" means created, adapted, or modified by computer, digital process, or artificial intelligence.
• Covers depictions "indistinguishable" from a real child to an ordinary person viewing them.
• Adds knowingly receiving child pornography to 28-813.01; a Class IIA felony at nineteen or older.
• A prior conviction for a listed "covered offense" makes a new violation a Class IC felony.
• Adds device and asset forfeiture at 28-813.01 and 28-1463.06; outright repeals section 28-1463.04.

What it says it is for

Does it do what it claims?

Mostly yes. The computer-generated provisions are real and sit at the center of the bill, but the bill also does several things the short title never mentions.

• Match: sections 1 through 6 define the new terms and fold them into every existing offense.
• Beyond the title: knowingly receiving child pornography becomes a crime under 28-813.01.
• Beyond the title: enhanced Class IC penalties attach to anyone previously convicted of a covered offense.
• Beyond the title: forfeiture of firearms, conveyances, devices, and software is added in two places.
• Beyond the title: sections 28-1463.01 through 28-1463.06 are renumbered as sections 1 to 6.
• The bill's long title does disclose these additions; the one-line caption does not.

Where Scripture bears on it

What does the Bible say about this?

Scripture touches this bill at two angles, and neither is a direct answer. Deuteronomy 4:25 warns of a people who "make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God" — the wrong there is located in the fashioning of a likeness and the use made of it, not only in an injury to a living person, which is precisely the question a statute raises when it punishes a depiction with no identifiable child behind it. Numbers 15:29 sets a different test — "Ye shall have one law for him that sinneth through ignorance, both for him that is born among the children of Israel, and for the stranger that sojourneth among them" — and it presses against a scheme that sorts the same act into a Class ID felony or a Class III felony, or into a Class IIA felony or a Class I misdemeanor, according to whether the defendant has turned nineteen. What the verses do not settle is nearly everything the Legislature must decide: neither assigns a penalty, neither distinguishes a generated image from a photograph of a real child, neither tells anyone where "indistinguishable" should be drawn or who should draw it, and neither speaks to forfeiture, to affirmative defenses for teenagers, or to whether a repeat conviction should carry a Class IC felony.

The case each way

What is the strongest argument for, and against?

The disagreement is over punishing images that depict no real, identifiable child.

• For: AI tools now produce images indistinguishable from real children, which the older wording did not clearly reach.
• For: the definition still requires the depiction look like a real child, not a cartoon or obvious fake.
• For: forfeiture and the covered-offense enhancement target the equipment used and people who reoffend.
• Against: a wholly synthetic image has no identified victim, yet draws the same felony classification.
• Against: "indistinguishable" turns on what an ordinary person would reasonably conclude, a jury judgment rather than a fixed line.
• Against: the teen affirmative defenses reach only defendants under nineteen charged under subsection (2) of 28-813.01.

What is unsettled

What should I be careful about?

This reading covers only the bill text supplied, which is cut off partway through section 8.

• The text stops at section 27-1301; amendments to 28-833, 29-4003, 29-4309, and others are not shown.
• No effective date, operative date, or emergency clause appears anywhere in the text provided.
• No appropriation or dollar figure appears; incarceration and prosecution costs are not stated.
• The text does not say how "indistinguishable" is to be proven at trial.
• The reason for outright repealing section 28-1463.04 is not stated in the text.
• The text does not say what happens to depictions that are stylized rather than photorealistic.

Text (1)

• Introduced (application/pdf)

Each link opens the Legislature's own document. The text itself is not in our database yet (fetched lazily); when it lands these pages will carry it verbatim.

All Actions (6)

Votes (0)

There have been no roll call votes on this bill.

Sponsors (1)

• Sen. Brian Hardin [District 48] — primary sponsor

Amendments (0)

There are no amendments to this bill.

Fiscal Notes & Statements (2)

• Fiscal Note — Fiscal Note
• Statement of Intent — Statement of Intent

The Legislature's own companion documents; each link opens the official copy.

Committees (1)

Related Bills (0)

No related bill information was received for LB172.