Bill Overview
Title: SHIELD Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes a new criminal offense related to the distribution of intimate visual depictions. Specifically, it makes it a crime to knowingly distribute (or intentionally threaten to distribute) an intimate visual depiction of an individual (1) with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the individual's lack of consent and reasonable expectation of privacy, and (2) without a reasonable belief that distributing the depiction touches a matter of public concern. A violator is subject to criminal penalties—a fine, a prison term of up to two years for each individual victim depicted, or both.
Sponsors: Rep. Speier, Jackie [D-CA-14]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals potentially affected by the distribution of intimate visual depictions
Estimated Size: 330000000
- The SHIELD Act of 2022 addresses the issue of non-consensual distribution of intimate visual depictions, commonly referred to as 'revenge porn.'
- The target population affected globally by this bill would include everyone who has the capability of accessing digital content, as they could encounter such non-consensual material or become victims themselves.
- Digital platforms and social media companies that may host such content would also be indirectly impacted as they might have to adjust their policies to comply with this legislation.
Reasoning
- The SHIELD Act primarily aims to protect individuals from the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, which can cause significant emotional distress and harm to social well-being.
- Given a potential budget of $100,000,000 for the first year, this policy could focus on raising awareness, implementing legal frameworks, and offering support services for victims.
- Enough funding would allow for effective enforcement, education campaigns, and possibly technological investments for platforms to detect and remove non-consensual images more accurately.
- While the policy does not directly impact everyone, it significantly affects those who are or could be victims of image-based sexual abuse, estimated at about 10% of the US internet-using population.
- The budgetary constraint implies prioritization of actions that provide a high return in terms of reducing the distribution of harmful content, such as working with digital platforms.
Simulated Interviews
Graphic Designer (New York, NY)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I strongly support the SHIELD Act, as it would offer much-needed legal recourse for victims like myself.
- The current laws are inadequate to address the emotional and professional damage caused by non-consensual image distribution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Austin, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I understand the need for such a law, I'm worried about potential overreach and impact on internet freedom.
- Proper safeguards should be in place to ensure this law is not misused.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Therapist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act could significantly improve the mental health outcomes for my clients by reducing psychological distress from non-consensual image sharing.
- Education and awareness should be key components of the policy implementation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Data Analyst (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this law is necessary to keep the internet a safer place, but enforcement and tech compliance could be challenging.
- Social media platforms need to take more responsibility in policing content.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired (Miami, FL)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This legislation is long overdue and will bring peace of mind to many, but I worry about its implementation this late in life.
- Hope it leads to fewer cases of online harassment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 19 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm happy there is now a law addressing this issue, as it affects many young people like me.
- The penalties need to be a deterrent for potential violators.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Lawyer (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act could create burdensome regulations that stifle innovation.
- However, it is necessary to protect individual privacy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Teacher (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's essential to protect children and teenagers from online dangers like revenge porn.
- This law is a step in the right direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Portland, OR)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act can push companies to innovate in identifying harmful content using AI.
- Balancing user privacy with platform responsibility is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
College Student (Boston, MA)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The SHIELD Act could help content creators like me feel safer online.
- However, it could also mean more changes to how platforms operate, affecting income streams.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $105000000 (Low: $52500000, High: $157500000)
Year 3: $110250000 (Low: $55125000, High: $165375000)
Year 5: $121550000 (Low: $60775000, High: $182325000)
Year 10: $148882500 (Low: $74441250, High: $223323750)
Year 100: $1025041148 (Low: $512520574, High: $1537561722)
Key Considerations
- The enforcement of the act might require collaboration with tech companies and digital platforms.
- Potential implications for civil liberties and privacy concerns surrounding digital surveillance and content regulation.
- Coordination with state and local law enforcement agencies is crucial for effective implementation.