Committee approves substitute tightening injunctive relief for alleged defamatory AI media ahead of elections

Committee counsel reported the SB141 substitute, which would allow a candidate‑plaintiff in a defamation action to seek a court order stopping further publication or dissemination of allegedly defamatory media within 30 days of an election, with courts instructed to weigh the public’s interest in a properly informed electorate.

The sponsor (identified in the transcript as Senator Sim) framed the substitute as a response to rising AI‑generated deepfakes around elections and said the measure aims to protect voters from manipulation without unduly restricting truthful speech. “If the voters can’t trust what they see and hear, then the entire decisionmaking process becomes compromised,” the sponsor told members.

Civil‑liberties groups and free‑speech advocates told the committee the revised language was an improvement. Chris Kaiser with the ACLU of Virginia and John Coleman with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression both said they welcomed narrowing the bill away from a broad definition of “electioneering communication,” which in the introduced version risked constitutional problems. The ACLU noted the original draft would have swept in many informal references to candidates and would have been difficult to sustain under the First Amendment; the substitute reduced that constitutional exposure, the ACLU said.

Americans for Prosperity’s Benjamin KN described the change moving away from the Hawaii law model as sensible; he warned that the Hawaii law had been struck down by the Ninth Circuit. Several members stressed the importance of preserving parody and satire and of avoiding prior restraints on speech while still providing tools to stop demonstrably false, harmful campaign materials.

After discussion, Delegate Shin moved to report the bill with the substitute; the motion carried and the committee reported the substitute 14–6.

What happens next: SB141 (substitute) was reported out of committee and will move to the next stage of the legislative process. Lawmakers and stakeholders signaled they will continue to work on narrowing definitions and procedural safeguards to reduce the risk of unconstitutional prior restraints.