Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Realize.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Alright. Good morning, everyone. This is the first meeting of a committee of conference, between house government operations and senate government operations pertaining s 23. This is the bill relating an act relating to the use of synthetic media in elections. And I'd like to thank the senators for joining us since it was the house that called for the committee of conference. First off, I know it's been a very, very long fall with this bill. Everybody's put a lot of work on it. I was going back and just looking at the record of action for the committee work on the bill itself in both of our chambers, and it was definitely an extensive run. And it was good, at least for me to like see sort of a little refresher on the amount of work that has gone out to this. I wanna like say that first and foremost to be like very respectful of all of that work that's gone in. So, I guess since this committee conference, we are on YouTube. We might as well go around and introduce ourselves real quick just for the record. Representative Beth Byron, chair of House Government Operations and Military Affairs, And I am, per rules, the chair of this committee of conference.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Representative Lisa Hango from Franklin five, and I'm vice chair of this committee.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Senator Tanya Vyhovsky, Chittenden Central, and I am vice chair of the Senate Government Operations Committee.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Chittenden's Eddings from Charlotte and Ainsburg, Chittenden 5, ranking member, house government operations in military affairs.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Senator Brian Collamore representing the Rutland District.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Senator John Morley, Orleans District. Right. Well, good to see everybody, and thank you for coming in early on a Tuesday to start the week off to get this ball rolling. If it's a medal to the committee, I would like to start, with just a run through on what was changed, how it was changed, and, just sort of a legal analysis with counsel, if that's good. Counsel, happy Tuesday. Happy Tuesday.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Rick Sable, office of legislative council. And, I can share the side by side that I created for the house committee. Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Please do.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So as it was it last week? Two weeks ago? Yes. I sent a request for sharing, Nick. So you should have the document in front of you. It's at the very top, it says s 23, senate proposal amendment on the On the right side it says S-twenty three has passed by the House. Okay, now I'll share it so the world can see what we all see. So, I've explained this in sensitivity possibility last time, but just to kind of reiterate the way I color code and the way I chose the language here. On the left side is the senate version, which was the last chamber to have the bill. Words in green were added by the senate. Words in yellow were changed by the Senate. On the right side, you have the asked passed by the House version. The yellow words again were changed by the Senate. The red phrases or words were removed by the Senate and their proposal of amendment. I'm only including language in this spreadsheet that was actually amended by the senate. The rest of the bill is much longer, but is not included in the spreadsheet. So the senate focused on the definitions. There are two definitions in this bill, deceptive fraudulent synthetic media and synthetic media. The senate, as it pertains to the definition one, deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media, really changed it from media that depicts a political candidate to an individual. And the way it reads is deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media means synthetic media that appears to a reasonable person, no changes yet, to be realistic instead of authentic representation of an individual that does any of the following: injures the reputation of a political candidate. The house version had that, but it was not worded the same way. Or attempts to unduly influence the outcome of an election, added language including a public question by providing materially false information to voters. The second definition, the only change was the again, the word individual was replaced political candidate, excuse me, was replaced by individual to match the definition of deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media. And at the very end, the House version had a kind of narrow exception without the consent of the candidate. So in the House version, the candidate could consent to an AI video that was deceptive and fraudulent. In the Senate version, that exception was from previous. There's no longer any consent permitted by the political candidate. Any questions about those two definitions?

[Representative Beth Byron]: Senator Vaishe.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yes. I just wanna make sure it The candidate can still consent to fraudulent media. They would just have to include the disclosure. Right. Can still do it. Correct. Okay. That

[Representative Beth Byron]: was my question. Gotcha. So

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Can you explain the difference in this context of between authentic and realistic?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: In this context, so when think when you look at the the start of the definition appears to be a reasonable person to be a realistic representation. Real versus authentic. Real is kind of more of a that looks real, that looks like it's not fake, it's a real video of this person saying the same, doing the same. Authentic, I think, may because some people think that it was created by that this person authenticated this video. They looked at it, they stamped it. There's not a huge difference to me, but there is a difference I think in the word itself that, realistic is more of a general term that this looks real compared to this is authentic. This is some kind of unique thing that this person approved or they saw it and they're like this is a this video I approve of. I think that could be seen differently, that word.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: I guess. Do you think original would be a synonym of authentic in this case? Or like, think I know what you're getting at, but. Like, when you say created by this person, like, it's I don't know. I might be able to help. Thank you.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: If you're amenable to that.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: It's always.

[Representative Beth Byron]: There you go.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Rick, would you say that realistic versus authentic is the perception by everybody else, and authentic is having been created by that one authentic refers to the originator of the media. So, realistic is the perception of everybody else, of everyone else, of that creation and authentic is pertaining to the originator of it.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's kind of what I was getting at, but maybe we need a dictionary to really determine exactly how Merriam Webster's defines them. Because legally, I don't think there is a legal issue here, But I think vocabulary wise, if you really want to know they're not the same word, right? So if you want to know the exact difference, I think it would be helpful to consult a dictionary and determine is authentic more about the creators? This is authenticated by I was thinking about baseball cards are authenticated by an agency. They determine this is a real baseball card. It's not a fake or a coin. This is an authentic coin. So that's not always the creator authenticating. It's like an expert who looks at it like, yeah. This is this is a $18.75 coin or whatever it is. So I think we should consult the dictionary. Yay. And determine the difference between the two words.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Yes. And now is probably not the time for it, but at some point, I would love to know the reason for the change, but I understand we're just doing the definitions right now.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Senator Vyhovsky, I would like to note on two for two on not calling you a representative.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: I appreciate that. No. No. As as I read it because of the lead in language, both of them are about perception as it is about the perception perception and appearance to a reasonable person. But I did Google it. Realistic refers to how closely something mirrors real life, logic, physics, and objective tangible reality. Authentic means being true to the original, possessing high credibility or faithfully representing the spirit, tone, and character character of a subject even if it is not technically realistic. So something could be authentic and not realistic. Right.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: And something could be realistic and not authentic. Got it. You you are

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: correct, senator, about the the intro language. It's how the person views it. And I don't know if a court is gonna get tripped up by this word, and the difference between the two. But, yeah, they are different. I think it'd be a choice policy choice of how you wanna phrase this, quite honestly.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: As I go a little further down, it says realistic is the fidelity to the facts, whereas authentic is faithfulness to the spirit.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I like that. Breakdown of the two words. I think that's like really concise to how the two are utilized as a linguistic tool. Rutland, still have any?

[Representative Lisa Hango]: I was thinking, this may not be the time to say this, but I actually like realistic versus authentic when it comes to the reason behind this bill. But let's just put that in a box for you.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Senator Gallo. Thank you. In the spirit of trying to move this along, does it muddy anything legally if we said realistic or authentic?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I I think it would cover potentially that point 2% more. Right? If someone argues this is not realistic, but it's authentic, then that may fit that or so I don't think it muddies it. I think it isn't necessary. I also don't know the answer to that question. It's up to you all. But I don't think it muddies it now. Sarah Valsky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: When I think about the sort of material false aspect, and really about the facts realistic makes more sense to me because something could be a lie, but authentically created. Like I made it, it's still a lie.

[Representative Beth Byron]: It's legit, it's not a fabrication of the like, machines. Yes.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Realistic sort of gets at fidelity to the facts, which is sort of in our definition as well, that materially false. So I think it fits more with with what we're trying to to do here. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Who's this a suggestion?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yeah. No. Absolutely.

[Representative Beth Byron]: And I guess with the concept of the and, the question is, in the Sarasota side, does it help or hinder an illegal channel? It muddy it and market and make it less clear if somebody is challenging what we're gonna, I presume, send to the governors as we go to law. So I just think for me personally, this being the first statute, the first thing teed up to become law in the entire realm of AI that I personally wanna make sure this is as like iron tight to a challenge as possible because I would not like to see the first thing we put in statute be challenged and be found. Yeah. Any other questions for this point?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Council? I do have one grammatical suggestion. Sorry to load you up. I think that that does any of the following should be either of the following if we want to be grammatically correct. There's not really a change to the I would recommend the committee consider, if we're going to change the definition to that does either of the following. Something I didn't catch first time.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Where are you at? Sorry.

[Representative Beth Byron]: We're still discussing the authentic and realistic. The green. So, would be either of the following authentic It's

[Representative Lisa Hango]: hard to read with the dark green. Yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: If that gets changed to either, would it preclude both of those things? Okay. So it could do both of the following? Yes. Okay.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. Mean, that point, it wouldn't matter. Right? If it does both, it doesn't like mean it's not deceptive and fraudulent. Okay, so any questions about A and B? Can I move on to I think we got through that?

[Representative Beth Byron]: Yes, well, least for the T up. Yes,

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: sir. Please. Okay. That was your Alright. Then we have, again, number two, we went through that, removing the without the consent of the candidate. Okay. On the second row, I'll call it twenty thirty two, the disclosure of a deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media. So, I mentioned last time, was a floor amendment to the actual disclosure, which is at the bottom of that first paragraph on the senate side, you see this media has been intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence. The as passed by house read as this media has been created or intentionally manipulated by digital technology or artificial intelligence service, floor amendment, that that language was a bit confusing. And the decision was made to strike those two words created or. Have some, if you want to talk about this, I do have some other examples of other states how they worded this, if you're curious. Most states have done this at exact disclosure, including the created or. But I understand you don't want to go with that. So, we have other options if you care to, when we get there, if you care to see those other options just to compare what other states have done.

[Representative Beth Byron]: That would very much be okay.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Should I do that now? Yes. Okay.

[Representative Beth Byron]: We're all here. Let's do it.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So it's from the NCSL website, which is a great resource. Okay, those are the joint rules. Okay, so this is New Hampshire and we talk about New Hampshire a lot because New Hampshire had the Joe Biden robocall. So they have their structure a little bit differently. And I just highlighted the part that is the disclaimer. This blank, and it's either image, audio, or video, has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: That. Read that

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: to me one more time.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Fill in this and then you fill in we don't have to do with this. I think you could just put media, but if they have it separated out, this image, video, audio has been manipulated or generated by artificial intelligence technology and depicts speech or conduct that did not occur.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Okay. That's pretty concise too.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: It gets at the deceptiveness point that you brought up. From senator Pershovsky. Correct? I like that.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I let's definitely flag that

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: for for her review and discussion. Just confirm this is New Hampshire. Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: And that would replace that sentence at the end of the paragraph on two zero three two. Right. K. I like it too.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Okay. Then I have Says what we're trying to get at.

[Representative Beth Byron]: It really is. That's why I was like, wow. That's concise and just really to the

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is color this is a Colorado. Similar, this image, audio, video, multimedia, has been edited and depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful.

[Representative Beth Byron]: More time, sir. I feel like I'm at the eye doctor. I'm like one and two. A word.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Two. This image, audio, video, multimedia has been edited and depicts speech or conduct that falsely appears to be authentic or truthful.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Nah. I think it's it's the same thing, but it's way more words than word.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: And edited is not the same as created.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Correct. It doesn't match this bill quite as well

[Representative Beth Byron]: as the entry bill. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We're back to one.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Thanks for the examples.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sure, I have one more. Please. The eye doctors really give you three.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I love a good trifecta.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This here, this is California and there's this very, very brief. This blank has manipulated and is not authentic. And it would be the same image, audio, video.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: I like our New Hampshire version.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I do too. And I mean, like, as my absolutely yes to the language itself being more amenable, but also I think it's good that we're kinda, like, leaning into a neighbor on this too for, like, continuity within the region. I think that's that helps also. I'm ready to move that we for our cross border consultancies out there. That would

[Senator Brian Collamore]: strike what is in both sections or both versions and replace it with what is the New Hampshire statute.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. So can we structure this? You know, they have there for you to fill in the blank. Oh. The S 23 currently has this media. You you want it to be tell me what you want. Because right now, you it would just need to be done in a different way.

[Representative Beth Byron]: We got Henga then Waters Evans.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: So media definition of media is pitch video, audio, anything else, Rick?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: To me, yes. Media again, this is not a legal thing, but yeah, to me, media is image, video, audio. Audio is maybe not. Maybe Senator Collamore might be able to would media audio be considered media? Yes. Happy because it's radio. You know?

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Oh my god.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Stereo. You have got to stop. You and I.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Yeah. And we've defined it up above in 02/00/1931. Right. Yeah. So I don't know that we need to differentiate.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: I don't think so.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, you could put

[Senator Brian Collamore]: it in, I guess, Rick. You could put this image what is the definition? Audio recording or video recording. Just put columns beside the movie. Yeah.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, it's kinda like so what what Colorado did. I know you didn't like the overall, but they have theirs the user it's implied that the user would have to choose one of those four.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Okay. In parentheses?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Yep.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's not my favorite. Yeah. As you're putting in quotes and But we could structure the language differently to say the same thing. Correct? We could.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Yeah. Rep Waters Evans, then I got Senator Vyhovsky.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: I like just using the word media because, you know, who would have thought ten years ago that we would even be dealing with this kind of thing? And I think that the word media can encompass a variety of things. If we're constraining it to an image or video or audio, I don't know what if there's like a chip in your brain with holograms at some point that might not be covered in it. If we say those things, I know. Well, you know what I mean? But anyway, I feel like the word media really covers a broader base and can be applied to other things. So I like that best. And also, I really like the New Hampshire one because it's really straightforward into the play. It did not occur. We don't have to worry about realistic or authentic or false or not false or whatever it is. It didn't happen. I like it.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: And I I Googled media and it does include radio.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Perfect. And that definition of media exists in other sections of water. Are we cross referencing it? No, we've got it up above.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, just within that. Well, we have synthetic media, which includes image audio. I mean, tend to agree that it's clearly implied that media would include audio since synthetic media. I think that's what I'm trying

[Representative Beth Byron]: to get at is like the application of that word. But some synthetics speaks to all of the media buckets that could be synthesized.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: When I think if they're generally speaking, when there is not a legal definition, we revert to the dictionary definition. The dictionary definition includes everything we're talking about. Yeah.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, just in some ways, just what the common use of the word is, which I think that's why I asked this radio. That's the one I wasn't sure about is radio media, but yeah, think that's pretty well established representative. So

[Representative Lisa Hango]: we still have an outstanding question on this 20032 A disclosure, and that would be the removal of stated or? Yes.

[Representative Beth Byron]: But before we jump into that bucket, just wanna Just one minute. Yep. Yep. I just wanna confirm with counsel and the committee that we are moving forward with a restructuring language for him to present to us built upon primarily the New Hampshire statute. So

[Representative Lisa Hango]: that might solve that problem, right? It might roll into it. It might Yes, that's entirely true.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, at that point, the bottom of the disclaimer, yes, that would fix that disagreement between the two.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Okay. Congress Evans? We're good. Thank you.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We're good. Okay. And then they the other part that was admitted by the senate, was the inclusivity, and the actual disclaimers and making the disclaimers. The senate added a couple of, inclusive lines. So for deceptive and fraudulent cinematic media, video recordings, the text of the disclosure shall appear in a size. This is

[Representative Beth Byron]: the bottom of page one. Yep.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Shall appear in a size that is easily readable by the average viewer and inclusive to the greatest extent possible of individuals with disabilities. On the second page, for deceptive and fraudulent synthetic media consisting of audio recordings only, the disclosure shall be read in a clearly spoken manner and a pitch and pace that can be easily heard by the average listener and inclusive to the greatest extent possible of individuals with disabilities. So again, the green was added. Nothing was removed. Nothing was revived the Senate. Correct? Just

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: to talk about later, I'm wondering, because we're saying for the video recordings, the disclosure shall appear for the full duration of the video recording. I'm wondering if we have an audio component of this. If we maybe, and I'm just thinking this through right now, as I'm saying it, but maybe it's said at the beginning and at the end. Oh, it's there. Okay. All right.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Because, yeah, it's in that second. And

[Senator Brian Collamore]: actually, if it's longer than two minutes, somehow there's interspersed within a warning.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Sorry, I missed it. I just got worried.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Just to clarify, that's only for audio recordings.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yes.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Video would not have that. Would

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Well, so video, it says the disclosure shall appear for the full duration

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: of the video.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Whereas you have that two minute timeline where you would have to engage with the disclaimer disclosure once it hits a two minute point.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Right. Because you can't have the audio go for the whole time or you'd miss the audio. It becomes very confusing.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: It's a lie. It's a

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: I

[Representative Lisa Hango]: think that's very inclusive.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: I can't imagine. I believe it would be did not occur. Okay. Yeah, okay. That's good.

[Representative Beth Byron]: So it sounds like we fire we're finding the 2032

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm. Both

[Representative Beth Byron]: one and two to be amenable with the change as proposed by the senate. Yes? Yes. Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yeah. So

[Representative Beth Byron]: the peg we're trying to square right now is to see what the language looks like on our agreeable position that we build it off of the New Hampshire structure. I'm seeing nothing but, like, nodding heads and positive Okay. Cool.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I think we can take care of section two zero three two today.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Yeah. Yep.

[Representative Beth Byron]: So, section two zero three two, as far as that, the committee finds it favorable. Mhmm. So just a I guess I'm gonna look to the members who've done more committee conference here. Is this just the strong hold thumbs up?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: You can do it that way. Yeah. In the end, we're gonna have to sign up.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Right. Yeah. I'm saying just for this exercise right now, just wanna make sure I'm procedurally doing the, like, process right or processing the process correctly. Yeah. Okay. So, section two zero three two, one and two, you're agreeing on that Senate proposal of amendment.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Correct? Mhmm.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: With the added, provision for the New Hampshire version of the

[Representative Beth Byron]: That's description.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. That's the third instance of amendment. Yep. Yeah.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Yeah. And I'm, grateful to the senate for coming up with that in the amendment. It's important to me.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: I'm appreciative. Senator Collamore?

[Representative Beth Byron]: Certainly.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Since you've probably been on more committees of conference than me, is it your understanding that a majority of each chamber represented in this committee of conference has to sign on? So two from the senate, two from the house?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I don't believe so.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: But Rick's nodding yes.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I got it.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: No. I thought if the final vote was four two, I guess that would imply that one of the chambers was unanimous. I'm trying to think if

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You need you need two from each. Do. You two from each.

[Representative Beth Byron]: That's what we were leaning towards. Okay.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: I understand. I just wanted to clarify that.

[Representative Beth Byron]: So I don't think that was a flag of discontent. I think that was actually just No. No. No. Like a procedural

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Yeah. No. That that's a good question. Yep.

[Representative Beth Byron]: So that part's agreeable. Mhmm. And then moving forward with the you work in the language.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: I think it would be good to see what we've suggested for 2031 and what the agreed on for 2032 in writing.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Yes, that was my hope. What is a turnaround time on language counts?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So for 2032, won't take me long because you're acceding to the Senate's proposal, meaning region one and two. To number three, you are asking the Senate to recede from their third instance and you're proposing new, this is the disclaimer language. Then for the first instance of amendment, I don't quite know yet what you want to do. So I can certainly type up a kind of half report that you know, but it wouldn't, you wouldn't sign

[Representative Beth Byron]: it. No, no, no,

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So let's draw a poll sign for that part of the reporting. Right, we

[Representative Lisa Hango]: are going to see in the next version the first green phrase change to that does either of the following.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Correct. Yep.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: I also, and I don't know that we straw pulled it, but I feel like the majority felt realistic made more sense than authentic, given that it pertains to the facts.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I have a star next to that word on my notes.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: I circled it.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Soggier and the same. Yes. Sure. So the either and the realistic seems to be amenable. So

[Representative Lisa Hango]: I think one of the outstanding looks like there's two outstanding items. We didn't talk about including the public question, but the big outstanding item is the change from political candidate to individual. Am I correct, right?

[Representative Beth Byron]: Yes. Correct. So public question and then the individual to the candidate. Alright. So open up the thought bubble. Do you actually counsel, do you have anything to discuss within that that you didn't discuss before, or is this on us now?

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think this is on you, really. If you have questions up here, but yeah. Yes.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I had Waters Evans first, then I had Henga.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: I wanted to start with saying, I think that including a public question, I think it's a good idea and a medical to that because. The point is to make sure people aren't being falsely. Given information about a vote and about an election, so I feel like many elections do include a public question, not just a candidate. So I'm cool with that language with including the public question is fine with me. Know that the other part, the political candidate versus an individual, I feel pretty strongly we should limit it to public political candidate this time. And public question, I guess, is the other thing we limit it to. I'm not The crux of it for the House Committee, at least, was that we were concerned about freedom of speech and not limiting people's rights to parity, to septer, to expressing their opinions. And I think it's tricky in this context because many, if most all political ads are the intent is to influence the way somebody votes. So it's more about. I feel like in what we are trying to do is not limit free speech. And I feel like in a weird way, like saying any individual might inadvertently do that. And make things so much less clear that it's not a lot of can withstand further scrutiny. And I don't think in this political climate and the way things are now, no matter what the politics are, it's there is an executive order that's trying to limit states from doing this in the first place. And I feel like we need to come up with something that's really sound and defensible. And I my preference is to not change it to individual.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Did you have a hand up first?

[Representative Lisa Hango]: I had a hand, but I'll wait for Senator Vyhovsky because my hand was half hearted.

[Representative Beth Byron]: That's exactly why I asked you for clarification. Extension of your

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: hand picture.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Yes. Senator Vyhovsky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: So the bill later does include a very clear exception for parody and satire. Uh-huh. And my concern with limiting it to political candidates, and and this is an example that came up in our committee, is say, for example, senator Sanders is not on the ballot. He's not a political candidate. Someone could create an AI video materially false, something he said or did in support of another candidate or in opposition to another candidate, and and it would not be captured. I I actually or I an an example that came up a bunch is, you know, someone could utilize a very famous celebrity. I think we used Arnold Schwarzenegger in our conversations to be spreading materially false information about an election, and that still may have sway with voters even though it is not the candidate. And so we felt quite strongly in the space of protecting elections that the exception for satire and parody and the limit to it around the election with the materially false addition narrowed it in such a way that captured what we wanted without fundamentally limiting everyone's free speech.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Rebecca.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Now it's not half hearted. Thank you for explaining where you were coming from in the Senate with that. I feel that in both the Senator Sanders and Arnold Schwarzenegger incident

[Representative Beth Byron]: Example of that. Yes.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Both of those examples would influence either the outcome of an election for a political candidate or the outcome of an election for a public question. It doesn't matter who is saying it, who is depicted doing it. It still would influence the election of something. And that's what we're getting at with this bill. So I don't think that we need to limit who is speaking or writing or doing something, because it's all going to be finable if it's trying to unduly affect the outcome of an election or anything. Does that make sense?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: And that was what we were trying to get at with our definition. Was not limiting it to the that says it. But trying to define and limit based on what it is the individual is doing.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: So I think in your example, you're talking about the originator and what I envision the bill as is the outcome. So it's an originator versus an outcome again. And I would like to see the originator be

[Senator Brian Collamore]: not

[Representative Lisa Hango]: I would just like to see the outcome of the election addressed in this bill rather than who is doing

[Representative Beth Byron]: So it's like what's being engaged with, not those doing the engagement action. Did I see a representative?

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Okay. So, I don't know how we can fix the language to make that agreement happen. But it just, to me, doesn't seem like the word individual here.

[Representative Beth Byron]: We have waters as it is, and I will go back to that soon.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Well, okay, so I have multiple thoughts about this. And the first is, I don't know if so if we use kind of as our example that we've been using since the beginning of this robocall from Joe Biden, who was saying, don't go vote tomorrow. And it was manipulated to sound like him. He was the candidate. He was saying, don't go vote. He was trying to unduly or not him, but this creator of this media, that the media itself was trying to unduly influence the outcome of an election. To me, if it's an election, Bernie Sanders isn't in it. Arnold isn't in it. I think it comes down to the word unduly, which means I don't think if either of those people are a candidate, I don't think a call from Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to unduly influence the outcome of an election. Or a video of him saying, don't go vote tomorrow, if he's not, you know, he's not part of that election. You know what I mean? It's because it's, that's not a thing. It's it's different to me. The intent of that video is different from the candidate saying, don't go vote tomorrow, as opposed to Bernie Sanders saying, don't go vote tomorrow, if Bernie isn't directly involved in that election. I think that removes it from that definition that we had talked about, about unduly influencing the election. And so that's why I hesitate to add any individual, because then you're starting to get into this territory. And I don't like banning things. And it seems like it's getting to this point of of banning a lot of stuff of trying to limit it because we don't like it or because it's not true. When really what we're trying to do is have a really strict in my mind or what I'm trying to

[Representative Lisa Hango]: do, I

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: should say, a really strict version of we are trying to prevent this sort of media from unduly influencing the outcome of an election. And I, I, I think once we open that question up to other people, then it it it's not clear. I I wouldn't if I were just a random voter and there was an election tomorrow and the election was between me and Rhett Bayron, and Bernie called and said, don't vote for Rut Bayron, I might be like, okay, well, Bernie likes him. Bernie doesn't like him. And I like Bernie, so I'm not gonna vote for him. But what if I hated Bernie and he said, don't vote for Brett Byron, then I would maybe go out and vote for him. The outcome of that isn't certain. So,

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I don't need to jump in.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: No. I want you to jump in.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: With both feet. Yeah. So here's another example that maybe, I think, in the senate, we didn't use this as an example, but I think it applies. Let's say Taylor Swift created supposedly created Mhmm. And and the the thing said, hey. The South Burlington ballot for a bond vote on a brand new pool is horrible, and you should vote no on that. And by the way, the election is tomorrow.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I'm never gonna play that arena you're building in South Burlington. Yes. Gotcha.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: So that's that's where we were then. Yeah. It's a completely divorced person from politics. Yeah. As far as I know, Taylor Swift is not a political candidate anywhere. Uh-huh. But she is attempting or whoever creates that to unduly affect a public election by giving the wrong date, first of all, but also showing whatever support people might feel for her into something that, I don't know, that's that's why we, I think, expanded it. And with all due respect to our alleged counsel, I understand, and I think the senate did, that it does I think Rick uses the term squishy. It it does get a little bit squishier in terms of a potential legal challenge, but that's where we were. That that's all I'll say.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: So I've got a couple things. One, this bans nothing. There's no ban No matter what language we use. Two, the example you just used with Bernie saying don't vote for Matt Birung wouldn't actually be covered by this because it's not materially false. Bernie would have to say Matt Birung is a monkey.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Oh, okay. And he's clearly not

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: a monkey. Yes. So your example wouldn't be covered by this because it wouldn't meet the materially false aspect. So

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: example wasn't good. So I I didn't give a good example. I was speaking off the cuff. But do you know like, okay. So if he said that okay. Anyway, sorry.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: And beyond useless.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yeah. Beyond, I think that when we start talking about a public question, who's the candidate? Would it only be a candidate that can lie about a public question using AI or would it and and I think we do have to take into account that there are a lot of people who have a lot of sway whether or not they're on the ballot. I think that frankly, if Bernie Sanders called a bunch of Vermonters and said or AI called a bunch of Vermonters and

[Representative Lisa Hango]: said Bernie.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yeah. Said the election is in December. Don't go vote in November. A lot of people would take that simply because of the public trust that he has. I think that if there's a lot Taylor Swift. Like, I will never comply at that. Like, that that is did not happen. Like so I think that the way we try to narrow it was by making sure that whatever was said was materially false. Meaning it can't be an opinion. It can't be this AI individual saying, oh I like this person or I don't like this person because that's an opinion. It is not materially it needs to be factually not true. And there was another point that I had and I have lost my notes. But I think the public question is really sort of like it isn't included if we limit it to a political candidate because there is no political candidate on a public question. It would have to be

[Representative Beth Byron]: It is all subjective opinion away from actual entity of the work itself because what you're voting on is not an individual. You're voting on some type of yeah, issue du jour within a municipality. Right. Yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: But if if an entity I mean, this is just the one that comes to mind because we fought for just cause evictions so much in in my district. If the landlord's association were to AI create something that said this valid item will raise your taxes 600%. That is materially false. But they are not a candidate.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Lawrence Evans, that hang up.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: If we remove the language, including a public question, it wouldn't exclude a public question from

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Question for me?

[Representative Beth Byron]: I think so. I think it's time for your ears to check. Recall

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the senate gov ops committee wanted to make sure that those types of elections were included, and my response was they are. But if you want these creators to be on notice that it does include public questions, then it doesn't hurt to include it. So my answer is a long winded, yes, they're included, but if you explicitly put it there, it makes it even more abundantly clear that we are also including public questions.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Rebecca?

[Representative Lisa Hango]: So I think I like the inclusion of the public question as sort of a belts and suspenders. It makes it much more clear to me. And now I'm thinking about this individual versus political candidate. And I really like Senator Collamore's example of Taylor Swift, who is not a political candidate at this moment, coming out and saying something in an altered video that she really didn't say, because we have it later on, it did not occur, not to vote on the whatever in South Burlington. I like that example. That makes it really clear to me that the realistic representation of someone doing or saying something false could be of anyone saying something false or doing something false. So Rick, my question was at one point I heard that this would not be defensible in a court of law.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Less defensible.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Or less defensible, sorry. But now, it's appearing more clear to me that altering anyone's words or appearance in an advertisement that will unduly affect the outcome of an election should be defensible. Yes, no, maybe.

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So, I have one court decision to go on, right? And this California District Court that said the California law was unconstitutional. It's one judge. I told every committee that is asking about this, every member that's asking about it on and offline that it is one court. However, it's a ruling we should put in our library of things to think about here. I think my main concern with expanding it to individual is you are expanding the restriction on the First Amendment. Doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. It just means you're now lumping in more speech, which when the government regulates speech, even though it's not a ban, it's you are requiring disclaimer. Your red flags go off because it's something the government normally doesn't do. You have to have a really good reason. And in this case, the reason is elections are really, really an important thing. And the state wants to make sure it is a well clean, not fraudulent election. And to that extent, you are passing this law that requires these ads that are created with AI or technology to have a disclaimer. Again, it's going to be We don't have a Supreme Court decision. We don't have even an appeals court decision. But when you open it up to any individual being depicted, you're just widening the scope. And that's all I've said. It's probably less defensible, but you still have the idea of trying to maintain the integrity of elections, which is a compelling interest the government has. Okay.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I got Waters Evans, Henga, Vyhovsky in there.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Yeah. So when we were, when we were talking about this in the house, we went we went through a lot of a lot when we were discussing this bill after it first came over from you. And that is what is and continues to be the sticking point for me and why we made these changes and really for the rest of the committee was this idea of restricting free speech in any way. And I know satire and parody are covered, but also, I think even if it's Taylor Swift, even if it's Jesus, whoever we think is going to be the ultimate influencer of everybody else, it's really It makes it so unclear, I think, as to say, who is of influence? How are they going to influence? Where does this person fall in the scale of most influential to least and what the outcome is going to be? Those are things that we cannot predict. We only have what we have to go on right now, which is. We don't want people. Don't want to restrict anyone's right to make these things. They can make them all they want. They can. They just have to include this disclosure. Right? I think having the disclosure itself. I don't know, I just I really feel worried and I feel like the spirit of the changes that we made in the first place were because we were so worried about restricting free speech. And it is arguably one of the most important thing we've got going for us right now. And I feel like putting any limits on that, A, is just dangerous and unacceptable. And B, also, I don't think we should be passing a law that doesn't have the teeth behind it to really, to stick with it. You know what I mean? I feel like we change laws every session, every year we change laws from before. I feel like if we start with something that's sound, I think if we start with something that we feel like is going to be a really good path forward and then we want to expand on it later, if something else happens or there are court rulings in other state that that give us some guidance, we can always change it. But I feel like we should start with the firmest footing possible.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: So I just want to point out we have

[Representative Beth Byron]: a floor in lock. Yeah.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: Yeah. Sorry.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: So we probably ought to think about the next meeting too.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Yes. And so I want to like, just, like, take a moment for, like, share his prerogative here where, like, I wanna reaffirm the point where, like, all these points are very, very valid and general, but focusing on the defensibility of this being our first law that is gonna go into effect for this election cycle because this is on passage, and the secretary of state's office is waiting for it to start implementing it once we're done wordsmithing. So the defensibility of it

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Mhmm.

[Representative Beth Byron]: I in my opinion, outweighs some of the intent for this first foray into this like bucket of ball. I got Haggo, I got Vyhovsky, and then we got a home things agency, all we gotta get to before seven minutes.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Okay, thank you. So this is very naive of me, But first of all, these types of laws are really new. We don't know where this is going to go. So, that's removed from the next thing I'm going to say. This is my naive thing. Free speech, to me, equals truthful speech, unless it's a parody or satire. So I feel like and this is a question the disclaimer is only limiting media that is knowingly falsely created. And when you Google free speech, one of the limits on it is defamation, which is libel and slander. And some of these instances that we've been talking about sort of fall into that for me. But this isn't the end of this discussion, so I'll yield to the Senator for final comments.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yes. No, I appreciate that. And I think the really important piece for me is providing material false materially false information. It is not just anyone says anything about an election. It is that they have provided materially false information with the intent to influence the election. So there's all kinds of speech, including some of the example that would not be covered. It is a disclaimer. And the reality of it is we don't know what's going to be defensible or not defensible because it's such a new area. And given for me the importance of elections and the increasing ways we've seen interference in elections, protecting our elections feels of the utmost importance. And I don't want to always just be playing catch up the next time something terrible happens.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: So could we meet tomorrow?

[Representative Beth Byron]: One of the issues

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: that we have

[Senator Brian Collamore]: is Senator Morley won't be here after tomorrow. 11:30? Just a suggestion, you'll have to leave health and welfare, and you would have to leave judiciary.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Yeah, I will have to leave.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Or should we try?

[Representative Beth Byron]: We actually have nothing I have that as a hold slot. Alright. I'm I'm sure I can leave senate ag. Okay. Do you wanna call it at eleven or 11:30?

[Senator Brian Collamore]: I think eleven. 11:30 is probably because we will be meeting, and I don't Okay.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Won't push into lunch.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Yeah. Yeah. Maybe. Maybe we'll all So what's up? Sleep on it and come back and say,

[Rick Sable, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you know what? That's everybody.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: We need to see what's on the agenda and if it keep for judiciary.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: It's just one possible

[Representative Chea Waters Evans]: time. 11:30 works for me.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: K.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: My agenda is not loading, so I don't know if it will work.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Okay. Let's see. So

[Representative Beth Byron]: where where we are right now is we are that the sticking point is the individual to political candidate. Correct. The way I see the structure. That's exactly it.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: But I guess we should say that we agree with most of what Mhmm. The house agrees with most of what the

[Representative Beth Byron]: Yeah. I think we're I think we're 85% of the way. But right now, if I was gonna do soft math

[Representative Lisa Hango]: I was helping to get a change. Yeah.

[Representative Beth Byron]: Don't have to do hard math.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: And stay

[Representative Beth Byron]: I used to like math. I'm an idea guy.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: Listening to S two zero eight Act relating to standards for law enforcement identification.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: Okay. Is there a vote on that? Because I think that's interesting.

[Representative Lisa Hango]: No. Just discussion, and then you have nothing until 01:00 at the floor. So 11:30 Depending on how long twenty five minutes. Depending on how long

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: that discussion goes, I could probably 11:31.

[Senator Brian Collamore]: Alright. Sorry.

[Representative Beth Byron]: There you

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky]: go. That is not a bill I can just bail on.

[Representative Beth Byron]: No. I I understand what that bill is. I heard I didn't even have to hear about like, I heard the number, and I knew where it was being discussed. Yes. So I understand that. So what we'll do is we will put down, like, a 11:30 start time with some built in flexibility for senator Vyhovsky and policy discussion instead of judiciary, but we'll sit down tomorrow and Oh. Work out this final piece, and your light is flashing. So with that great first meeting, folks, I really enjoyed that. Thank you. And you can take us off, Nick. We will reconvene tomorrow at

[Senator Brian Collamore]: eight