By my estimation this runs head first into the first amendment and likely does not survive. It also likely violates the equal protections clause as it is only

By my estimation this runs head first into the first amendment and likely does not survive. It also likely violates the equal protections clause as it is only granting "identifiable individuals" (which does not appear to be defined?) special rights. There is a mountain of case law that states that public figures have limited protections from criticism, mockery, etc. I am not sure humiliation will hold up any better. They likely knew this as they add this at the end: > If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of and amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision or amendment held to be unconstitutional to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby. Also this definition is still quite broad? > “(3) DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic.”; So it doesn't even need to be pornographic, just "intimate".