Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. We are live. Alright, everyone. Hope you all had a nice lunch, shortly after 1PM on Tuesday, January 27. We're starting this week's committee work with a committee discussion on s 23, an act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections. So we have a side by side that was provided by counsel on our committee page. And so we are gonna go over, the changes that were sent to us by our colleagues in the senate and suspended action on it today on the floor. So we would have this time this afternoon to have a more granular understanding of, what these changes were. We did touch on it last week, but this is the real end of this. Counsel? Yes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Sure. We're gonna open with a question. Representative, go.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Alright. Forgive me for asking this question, but the senate changes don't really talk about in the first section, 2,031 definitions don't appear to talk about elections specifically. It talks about a political candidate. But in the House version, we were very specific. It was in elections. And the Senate version doesn't appear to reference that. Am just reading too much into this?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So for the record, Rick Siegel with the office of legislative council. And maybe my color coding, just so you all know the way I do it. Not sure if Tucker and Tim do it the same way, but, yellow indicates the word has changed. A similar wording system, the senate version, but, it's a different word. Green means it's new language that the senate added, and red means language in the house version that was removed by the senate. So, Rutland, what I think the no. It's my short answer. Long answer is it still must be an ad that either injures the reputation of a political candidate or attempts to unduly influence the outcome of an election. So there still has to be some connection to either a candidate or to an election. But the so I think what you see here is that it can be any individual, not just a political candidate that causes this misrepresentation.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Thank you. That's where my confusion was because it does reference election in, letter b. But Right. Number two was confusing me. So that's what they've changed. Thank you.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It is, like I said last time, it is a significant change, going from a political candidate to an individual. I talked about that last time and happy to expand on that again. And just to kind of tie things up, those items that I went through was it last week or two weeks ago? Can't remember. Was it last week? Okay. Those items were officially adopted by the senate. There was a floor amendment by the pro tem, on the right side. If you see the house definition of 2032, not definition, the actual disclosure that the ad must contain, the house version said, it's at the bottom of that first paragraph, this media has been created or intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence. So there were some, floor floor conversations about that being confusing. It ended up getting removed. So the disclosure now is that same sentence without the two words created or. So it's this media has been intentionally manipulated by a digital technology or artificial intelligence. That was a surprise to me, so I wasn't ready to talk about it last time.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I mean, I'm just a kind of riff here. I personally see the merit of having the created or included in the language, but

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In my so my memory, this was during the recess of the sentence, it was not recorded, but my understanding was that they kind of a language confusion issue that the idea was that would this mean that this could be the media which is created, not manipulated, just created by digital technology or AI. So I think in his mind it was to alleviate some confusion about how the synthetic media was created or not created. That it was just manipulated. I think the phrase created or was creating a problem for some people.

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: That's really confusing. It seems to me like there's

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: a misunderstanding of what AI is. Period. Because AI

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: the precincts you stand on your thought, please?

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: AI can create, it can also manipulate, and both are not good things if they're influencing elections and breaking down our democracy. So to me, I think it just needs to be an educational moment of what AI is and what it is capable of doing. And one of the major things it does is it creates things. Salem agrees. Sorry.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: The peanut from the gallery. RipPoint.

[Unidentified Member]: I could go into a platform and say, make an image of Taylor Swift saying, endorsing representative Boyden for the X campaign. Or I could upload a photo of representative Stone and I and say, rest at the beach. Don't need to be using examples, but that is creating and manipulating. That's hard to be harmful. Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: think as far as I know, though, the distinction is an individual person is still directing the AI to create something. AI isn't doing things on its own yet. That's the distinction that I'm familiar with.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So,

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: are you saying that this need has been created or intentionally manipulated by digital technology, then it would be like a grammar thing or a usage thing. You'd say this media has been created using. Yeah, created or intentionally manipulated using digital technology or artificial intelligence instead of by? Yeah, because by implies that it was the artificial, the digital technology that did it. Okay, got it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: As opposed to the human engaging in the directive.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I don't like it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Seems to be a consistent vibe. Rep Coffin.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: Yeah. Because I'm looking in the definitions. Okay. Up in section two. Okay. They changed where they changed individuals appearance, speech, or conduct that's been created or intentionally manipulated with the use of digital technology. So that definition, synthetic of synthetic media, why would we leave that created out of the where they have to put that statement in? If the the actual definition that we've agreed on is says created or intentionally manipulated, why would it confuse anybody to use that definition in there?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Good point.

[VL Coffin IV (Member)]: And strike strike the word created or. It it makes no sense. If it's if that's the definition, that should be there to make sure if it's clear in the definition, it can't be confusion there.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That's my argument on that. Point taken, sir. Counsel.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And I think if you're if you're gonna propose another amendment, which it's your your call. Right? I I there was something on the senate floor as well that, I think senator Berchelich brought up that why doesn't this the disclosure also state that it's synthetic media, fraudulent media, subject media. It's just saying that this has been manipulated. That makes that's a good point. The disclosure doesn't even say that it was, it's deceptive and fraudulent or that it's, you know, anything else that we've kind of used as a definition here. I'll say the only thing about the the definition is it does say, manipulated with the use of digital technology, including AI. Mhmm. I think we just need to kind of shore up these. If we're gonna make an amendment here, let's line things up. Let's pick a path and then match our definitions and our disclosure to actually line up together and there's no confusion. That would make some sense. And I don't believe any chamber touched the disclosure. I'm trying to remember. I think it's been that way since it was introduced, that exact language.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Hold on. I'm just going in the text itself. Any questions for counsel while I'm thumbing through the text itself?

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: I'm just curious as to why they felt it was important to add including a question by providing

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: about

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: an inclusive to the greatest extent possible of individuals with disabilities. Why couldn't it be

[Unidentified Member]: to the greatest extent possible for all individuals?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Would you like to respond to that?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I was just going to answer in case counsel couldn't speak to the why of it, because I was there and sitting there and they came up with it, which is that it was taking into account that if it were just printed and someone who was vision impaired was listening to it, but they couldn't see the disclosure that it was important to include. I believe at one point it said audio and visual, but then there were some wonderings about other things. So I think what they settled on was inclusive to the greatest extent possible to reach all people who might not be able to receive that message, either through seeing or hearing or whatever it means. Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Kate? Sorry, Rutland?

[Kate Nugent (Member)]: Not to be annoying about this, but if we don't align the disclosure language with If it sounds like the AI created it, then it will be hard to enforce. I think if someone could say, Well, the AI didn't create it. I created it. That makes sense. I should back up. If AI can't make ads by itself without a human telling it to do it. It's correct up in the definition, but it's not in the disclosure.

[Unidentified Member]: So that would be

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: No, that's to be true.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: May not at this point. You.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Then I will kick to Rutstone next.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: Guess we're just like putting commentary.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Totally. This is like open discussion.

[Unidentified Member]: I'm really confused when we took

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: so much testimony on the importance of putting down the language so that it would be more defendable if there was litigation, for it to be specific to political candidates' elections. And now it looks like the Senate has expanded it, which is the opposite of what we heard, like, was recommended in our testimony to be I'm seeing a lot of individual's appearance instead of political candidates appearance. And I'm just concerned and also curious because we specifically narrowed the language. It's like they are really opening the gate.

[Unidentified Member]: I don't

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: know why. That's the opposite of what we heard is the recommendation. They're not here, but I'm

[Unidentified Member]: just throwing that out. Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Hooper, Randolph, you seem like you have something to say.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: Should we should we bring it back to the way we like it? I feel like that's what we should do. Is that interesting? I

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: got Rutland, then

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: What did you say? Should we go back to the language that we had before? If

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I remember correctly, we were sort of like, we don't have time to do this, so let's just send them what we've got, and they can work on us, we'll take it back. And then, like, I remember that narrowing, but I also just remember us doing but giving this at the attention that we maybe would have

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: should have

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: or would have wanted to. Figured this was the time to do

[Unidentified Member]: that. Yeah.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: If they made the bill worse, let's make it better again.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Well, this is what I have to say about that, to respond to that. I had forgotten everything that we went through to the point where I forgot that I had made an amendment on this bill that we presented. I think our final vote, I'm looking right now, was it eight three zero or eight zero three? It was eight zero three. Okay. That was good. When it left here, we were in a good spot. We were like, we're protecting freedom of speech. We don't want to inhibit anyone's right to say what they want or to do satire or parody. But we also don't want people to be fooled by this. And and we had all those fun discussions about it and we reached a good spot and we sent it back. And then I was in Senate go ops for two hours, couple weeks ago, just listening, kind of participating was love talking and listening to what they had to say. And I don't want to tell tales out of school. But what I did hear people say a couple of times during their discussion was what I wanted to do is ban it in the first place. But we can't do that. What I wanted to do is ban it. And we don't want to ban it. Right. Like, that's the last thing we want to do. And I feel like they were trying to inch. And this is my personal feeling about it. We can all go back and watch it. But I feel like they were trying to open it up a little bit more intentionally because they didn't like how strict we had made it, because really, heart, they wanted to get rid of it altogether, which we can't. My personal I shouldn't say we can't do things. My personal belief is that I don't like banning things.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I wish we could ban a

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: just sure. But that could a different bill.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: And what we are trying to do in this under our specific jurisdiction and with this specific piece of legislation is address, the infamous Joe Biden robocall in New Hampshire, where he said, don't go vote. And they made it sound like his voice. And it could really affect people in that way. I think the other thing that bothers me a little bit about about what they sent us back over from the Senate was they removed the part about that I believe we had added in about if you give consent to your image being used, then it's okay. Because they were saying, what if I made a video of Chea Waters Evans saving a kitten from a tree, and then teaching it how to play the violin, and that's not true. And then it would be positive and it would have my consent, but it would also be misleading the voters. But also, would it be unduly affecting an election? Unless you were a kitten slash violent, you know what I mean?

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: Unduly impacting people's perception of reality.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Right. But that brings us back to the question, which is. In a way, I think all campaign materials in some way, they are trying to influence the outcome of election. It's that word unduly, which means something different entirely. I believe Rick can tell us what I'm doing. I don't want to speak for it. But you know, I mean, it's that difference. It's like, I don't know, for me, that's a huge difference that I think that we need to. I don't know. I don't want to give it up.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So I had a believe a Boyden, a Hango, but a Counsel that looked like

[Unidentified Member]: I know.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Interject.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: So I kept going I'm gonna defer it. Thing, and then I just I'm

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna defer to Counsel.

[Unidentified Member]: Up. Okay. So

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you did add the consent piece, the house this house committee did. So unduly is something you also added, and it's really like a substantive thing. Right? Like the Biden robocall, like lying to people about the day. That's pretty substantive. I said in the senate committee, if if he lied about the the the weather on a day, is that substantive? You know, probably not. Line about the color of his suit, like, probably not. But, line about the place of election, time of election, requirements to vote, eligibility to vote. Those are pretty sub subset things that may influence someone whether they're actually gonna vote or not. See, it's not like there's not a specific definition, but it's gonna be up to a court to determine do we think this specific AI ad was unduly influencing to people voting.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: Hope that helps.

[Unidentified Member]: One thing I do appreciate about the sentence proposal is the inclusivity language for the disclosure. I think it's really important that all people, no matter what, are able to know what the media may be, fragrant or deceptive.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: I think I'm good. Thank you.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: Hooper, Randolph. I'm thinking this question is for Chea, but or excuse me, representative Waters Evans, but I anybody? Why can't we ban AI? Because the First Amendment protects people's right to spew polls?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Well, I don't believe that's how it's written in the constitution.

[Unidentified Member]: Exactly. I think

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: the word spew would be here somewhere anywhere. But I do think that there is an argument to be made that Rick probably knows more about this than I do. But the argument to be made, which is the one that we were having this debate, is we don't want to restrict anyone's free speech.

[Unidentified Member]: Right, right.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: If you want to be mad at Chea Waters Evans and make a video and manipulate my kids in the video to say we have the worst mom in the whole world. That is kind of your right, right? Like, we've already established long ago satire and and political opinions and all of these things, a parody and all of that stuff is it's allowed and encouraged and it's part of being a society that permits constitutionally, it gives us the right to set things. And I think that's why we can't ban it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: building on that, I'm thinking that your example was not harming a large group of people, like voters or a large group of people. And this bill is specifically honed in on giving large groups of people that are making decisions false information. Does that help at all? Your idea of banning would be a different bill. Yeah. Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Says a much narrower legislative report.

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Reading from the table is we're finding the language to be something we're not willing to concur with.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: I

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: do like their addition of the language about making it inclusive for folks with disabilities. That's something I think we should keep.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But the totality of

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: the rest of it, nothing

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: can do. We're at this point, though, where like, you have you have the ability to amend the bill one more time and send it over. I gotta put a butt on this. But one of the intents of trying to move it last year was to get something in front of the secretary of state's office so we can have something in place for this election site. So with amending it, sending it back over, that's gonna be a little bit of a calendar absorbing moment. So we could also recommend a committee conference.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Let's go.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: And that would move this process along a bit more briskly, I think, if we did that format.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: My only fear is that it will come to a stalemate, and it won't go anywhere at all. And that I'm just throwing that out there in a committee of conference.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Very much. But as I as I kinda workshop this this thought, and I didn't do it on my own, in consultation with the speaker, that letting it one more time and sending it over was probably gonna end up landing in a conference anyway. So we might as well just do that part now. Rep point.

[Unidentified Member]: Even rather than siloing our conversations again, like we're having one conversation here, if we were to send it back over to them, they're going to have their own conversation around, we can sit down at a table and talk again.

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: Correct. Yes, rep Pinsonault. And they may

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: be more willing to hear our side of it versus seeing it in a paper. If we can explain what we're trying to accomplish, might

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: be able

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: to see it. Small group, more of an arbitration format. Yes.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: In a committee of coverage, you cannot amend or can you add language? Can you explain to me what exactly the rules are? I just want to be clear about it. Can you

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm going to double check, but because it was an instance of amendment Yeah. I think all you can amend is that portion of it, which is kind of what you're having concerns about. Okay. However, could you touch And you actually could just touch the disclosure language because it was also amended. So if you want to change the disclosure language to something totally different, or put back created or, you can do that as well. So that you're either limited to that. I'm pretty sure you are. I will confirm and get with the chair on what you all can amend in the conference.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: But the the pieces that we seem to be the sections that we seem to be in disagreement or stuck on the minutiae are the ones that will be for the conversation in a committee's, conference structure. And the process for that is for us to straw poll as a committee of conference recommendation. But, so, I personally am leaning towards the committee of conference. So I guess while we're at Strothold, all those in favor of recommending a committee of conference, be sure of thumb. Who's gonna be on it?

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is determined by the

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: speaker. Hello.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. That is an eleven o to conference.

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah. Thank

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: you. That takes care of that order of business.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: Thank God we're not done with S23. This

[Philip Jay Hooper (Member)]: one's been a journey. Yeah. He got back to rushing through. I

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: was thinking of you, when you said you didn't like sending film stories that weren't done and ready to go.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: You still want

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: That's what I'm saying.

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I know. I was thinking of you when I was

[Rick Siegel (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: your law school.

[Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault (Member)]: Tired of hearing, like, oh, this is

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: We'll restart it in our next order before.

[Unidentified Member]: Skip the box.

[Lucy Boyden (Clerk)]: No. That's

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah. Woah. Woah. Woah. Woah.

[Mary-Katherine Stone (Member)]: You were right.