Calif. Lawmakers to Look at Digital Misbehavior When Reconvened

SACRAMENTO—Once lawmakers reconvene California’s Legislature next month, they will continue weighing three pieces of legislation that are each aimed to reduce misbehavior in the digital space. Leaders of the California Legislature last week extended the cancellation of all hearings and meetings until May 4, a decision they said was needed for additional caution in the face of the ongoing pandemic. The Internet bills under consideration—Assembly Bill 2065, Senate Bill 798 and AB 2010—have been either postponed in committee or referred to another panel. How lawmakers adjust the process this year remains to be seen, and it should be considered the Legislature historically passes its last bills on May 31. Whichever bills are passed, if any, it’s important to note that California laws serve as a catalyst for legislation and even litigation and prosecution beyond the Golden State. AB 2065, if passed by lawmakers and sent to the governor, would now make it a felony—bumped up from a misdemeanor—to share revenge porn, punishable by more than a year in prison. Under the bill, threatening to share a person’s nude photos also would become a crime, a misdemeanor. Those found guilty of violating the law would be required to register as a sex offender. California seven years ago put a crimp on revenge porn when it made it a misdemeanor to share “intimate images” of a person without their consent. Currently, the penalty for a first offense is six months in jail. The piece of legislation, authored by Assemblyman Tom Lackey, also would crack down on the sharing of so-called “deepfakes,” where the subject has been altered to make them appear as somebody else. But it wouldn’t apply to images of “clearly parody, political commentary or other form(s) of speech protected under the First Amendment,” according to the bill. SB 798, penned by Sen. Ling Ling Chang, would make it a crime to send unsolicited nude photos, allowing plaintiffs to file private suits. The Preventing Indecent Content Sharing (PICS) Act would authorize a plaintiff to be awarded statutory damages between $500 and $5,000 and reasonable attorney’s fees if the pic wasn’t expressly consented to by the plaintiff. AB 2010, authored by Assemblyman Jordan Cunningham, would require online dating services to notify users if they have communicated with another user who has been banned for using a false identity or who were a fraud risk. According to the bill, the law “would require the service to send a specified notice to a California user known to have previously received and responded to an onsite message from a banned user.” “The bill would require that the notice be sent within 24 hours after a banned user has been identified and banned, or at a later time if the service has determined that a different time is more effective, but not later than three days after the ban,” the bill said.