Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We are live. Good morning. We are in Senate Judiciary March 24. We are taking up H626 and we have Charlie from the Vermont Network and the Florida Lakers.

[Charlie Blisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Well, thank you for having me. Charlie Blisserman, I'm the policy director of the Vermont Network and Domestic and Sexual Violence. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to someone in strong support of H-six 26. And I'm also very grateful to the members of this committee and the chair for introducing the companion bill to this in the Senate S-two 56. Image based abuse safety includes the creation distribution and grant to share explicit images of a person without their consent. This bill covers three different kinds of invasive use. Voidarism, where images or recordings are taping from a person to not let their consent in a private setting, such as a hitting camera in a restroom. Non consensual disclosure of explicit images, which are images that could, may or may not have been originally obtained with permission and that are later shared without permission. And Vermont's statute on non consensual disclosure of explicit images includes digitally altered or AI generated explicit images. And lastly is Distortion, which is a form of sexual exploitation in which a perpetrator threatens to disclose real or synthetic explicit image unless the victim complies with a man. This can occur in the context of domestic violence. It can also occur in the context of trafficking or online stances. We really see this bill as an opportunity to evolve as technology evolves. Technology advances, this harm has become much more common and much more severe and our law have to be updated to protect Vermonters in this reality. When an image is shared online, can spread instantly and be nearly impossible to remove. Survivors face a chronic sense of threat that their abuse will continue no matter what they do because an image will remain accessible on the audience. And those consequences are wide ranging. It can impact a survivor's safety, reputation, relationships, job prospects, and health. And it disproportionately affects young people and will take the rest of their lives. One piece of research on this issue that I think is really important is that research shows victims of interfaith abuse experience significantly higher rates of depression and PTSD than even victims of other forms of domestic and sexual violence alone. I think that speaks to the chronic level of threat and harm that comes from image based abuse. So this bill addresses image based abuse both in civil and criminal law, and I'll speak to the civil law components first. H-six 26 strengthens remedies in civil court for victims of video voyeurism and non consensual disclosure of explicit images. Survivors can file a lawsuit against a perpetrator for the harm that they have caused, and those provisions retroactively apply to acts of voyeurism and non consensual disclosure of explicit images committed before those acts became crimes. Or excuse me, after those acts became crimes. It also clarifies the diagnosis of a trauma related disorder such as PTSD meets the requirement of at inquiry in a civil claim. I know Michelle Tiles legislative counsel spoken for walkthrough about the Kilburg v. Stimmon case and how Justice Reiber, Chief Justice Reiber and Justice Quaples noted that in their concurring majority opinion, that our laws had not really had peace with our understanding of PTSD and psychological trauma, and that this area of court law should be developed more by the legislature if we couldn't agree more. On the criminal front, H. Six twenty six shifts the statute of limitations for inmate based abuse crimes to align with how they actually unfold. Current law gives victims three years from the time the crime was admitted, but many victims don't discover an explicit image

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: of themselves online until years later, sometimes after it's already been viewed by millions of people.

[Charlie Blisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: And under current law, their opportunity to pursue criminal charges may have expired before they even know they were harmed. And so this still extends the statute of limitations for voyeurism involving images, voyeurism involving disclosure of images or reporting non consensual disclosure of explicit images and sex torsion to forty years. And this will ensure that survivors have a meaningful path to justice.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Brother, did you say four years? Forty. Would just make more sense to have the statute of limitations be upon discovering the offense?

[Charlie Blisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: That was in the bill as introduced, Michelle Child, I think, spoke really well to this. I'm sure Kim can as well. Because the House Committee weighed out whether there should be a long statute of limitations or whether the clock should start upon discovery. It's my understanding that there aren't other criminal statute of limitations in Vermont law that have that kind of structure starting at discovery. Then in the case there will be discussion and debate about when that date of discovery was, And it was thought that it would be more protective and straightforward to have long stashed publications.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Charlie Blisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: You're welcome. Lastly, H-six 26 creates penalties for criminal threatening involving explicit images or sexual conduct. Threatening to disclose an explicit image is a deeply formative act. It can be used to compel victims to provide money or labor or to engage in sexual activity against their will. It's an element of courts of control and domestic violence, sexual violence and stalking, and we feel it should be recognized in Vermont criminal deputies. I will also note that we are working closely with a survivor on this bill who's been deeply impacted by image based abuse, And we would just hope that the committee would have an opportunity to hear from her directly in the coming weeks. I thank you again for your time and consideration, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Quickly, could you send the contact information of the person who'd like to testify to Emory and we'll get that sorted out for them at some point in the near future.

[Charlie Blisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Okay, perfect. Thank you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Maybe any other questions for Charlotte?

[Charlie Blisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you, Charlotte. Thank you.

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Good morning. Good morning. For the record, I'm Jim McManus, Department of State attorneys and sheriffs. Can have the four o on eight H six two six, the Department of State's attorneys and sheriffs supports H six two six. As miss Golisorman was just testifying to, this bill is seeking to keep pace with technology and trying to keep pace with newer ways that folks are harming others by disposing these images. Van Duran case said, the disclosure of these images creates a digital stain almost impossible to fully erase the harms that these crimes cause. Again, as Ms. Melissa Ren just stated, cannot be underrepresented. It's a crime that for many, includes on and on because it's so difficult once the image has been disclosed to get that image back. The restructuring voyeurism, which is section one of the bill, as presented by legislative council, it's all pretty much the same. There's a little bit of rewording, but it's mostly just reorganizing to distinguish between the act of viewing someone an expectation of privacy versus filming, photographing, or recording. And just with that, also pulling out and then disclosing an image after I've taken it lawyeristically has a higher penalty than the recording and where it's viewing, if that makes sense. So in voyeurism, here's the viewing, There's the photography filming recording. And then there is a disclosure there with the lawyers of statute. So that's just something to note. And that is a higher penalty of a valid police felony of up to five years. Section two, again, is mostly cleaning up the disclosure of a sexually explicit image. We have no issues around the work that have been done there. And then section three is creating a new crime for sexual distortion. It's important to distinguish disclosure of a sexual assaulting women without consent. One of the reasons somebody might disclose that is to intimidate, harass, or threaten a person, but sexual extortion, it's an active threat, that you're threatening to expose the image or you're compelling someone to do certain behavior or you will release the image. So there will be extra elements that the state would need to prove in order to see that forward. The sexual extortion statute, again, has higher penalties. Certainly the disclosure under 2606, the Bomi Sarat Vulnerability Call for Revenge Reform. And I

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: do have a few, I think two questions to this. I'm on page 11. We're planning to have the AG's office to talk about this too, maybe you can clarify. Line five, the definition of an identifiable person. Can you expand a bit more on what that means? Could just expand a bit more?

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Sure, and absolutely, Attorney Padula also will be able to give you wonderful testimony on this. But essentially, when we bring these cases forward, we need to connect that the image is an identifiable person in that if I took the picture of the back of Senator Mattos, and I'll keep you fully clothed with the purposes of this meeting. And so it's the back of Senator Mattos, he's walking away. There's a question of whether I can identify him as Senator Mattos, right? So I might be, I can't see his face, but maybe he has identifiable hair, or he's wearing, oh, that suit jacket. I know that, I can connect that to Senator Mattos, and I would bring another piece

[Charlie Blisserman (Policy Director, Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: of

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: identity evidence to connect those dots. So when we have these explicit images, sometimes the face is not in the image. So then the question is, is that body identifiable to a person? I had a case of disclosure of explicit images, and my victim had a very recognizable tattoo on her body, and it was something that people who knew her would recognize that tattoo. So when there was an image of her body without her face, we didn't need her face to identify her, nor people who knew her tattoo, they'd be like, Oh, that so and so. That's a picture of her explicit body. So that's how we connect identifiable,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: It if that makes does. And so I guess a follow-up to that, and maybe it's too hypothetical, but I'm wondering about being able to identify the background or the room that somebody's in. Like let's say you can't identify the person, maybe their face is blurred out or something or would you still be able to use this if you're able to identify like, oh that's so and so's room do you get what I'm saying?

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: I do, and it would depend on the facts and circumstances. So yes, if it's a person on the bed in the room and then the person's saying, well, that's my room, and I'm the only one who would be in there, and so we're trying to make that connection. Could there be an argument against it? Possibly. So that might be something that we're arguing over. In College housing, different people are using different rooms, we start to get into, being that it's more complicated, but that's where, oh, the face is blurred out, oh, that bracelet. If someone says bracelet, I think that's you want that. It'll depend on that information, but we're going connect that. We don't have a direct image of a face.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. You do. Senator Honsky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I do. So I appreciate you clarifying that that intent to do harm piece is in the sort of extortion, like that exploitation piece. What I'm wondering, and maybe you can answer this, is as I'm looking through sort of circling back with the lawyerism, and I appreciate it being restructured to be more clear and modernized. But in the disclosure of the videos or images to a third party, it only covers what's previously in the bill, which is that they were not collected with consent. And I'm wondering if in the underlying law or as you see it anywhere in here, we are also addressing someone sharing things that might have been collected with consent, but there was no consent.

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: That would be covered under twenty six zero six. Okay. So it's an existing law. Okay. Yeah. So it's really interesting. Lawyers on this structure, if you disclose it, you are the one who took that image, you know, without any consent, it says you're set up with your camera up on the street, you've done two things there that we would have to prove versus, right, where your two partners share photos with consent with each other, but then one discloses it without consent, that would be under twenty And five point zero then if I threatened to disclose it, then it would go to sextortion, the new bill. So we appreciate from our perspective is through these three different statutes, voyeurism, the school for explicit material, and self depo sexual extortion, depending on those facts and circumstances, we can find an avenue to pursue criminal culpability. Thank you. I just,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I wanted to make sure that that was covered in underlying law. It does not appear here because it is. So I appreciate you sort of walking me through the three

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: avenues. And similarly with sexual extortion, because, and if anyone has the opportunity to listen to the house testimony, parents who provided testimony about their children being involved in sexual extortion. It's a very powerful testimony. But in those cases, the images were shared knowingly with the consent by the juvenile that thought it was okay, and then they were being threatened by it. So even if you consent to the images, if you're not, you know, you're being threatened by those images, and you're not wanting those to go out into the world, this would cover you. I need to answer questions. I know there are few questions around strict liability. I also know it's new, so I'm happy to come back. You. For the questions about the immunity clause, there are a few things that have come up in your walk.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Do you think that since we're at noon, maybe we should adjourn for the day so that the conversations around those policies aren't too rushed.

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Sure. We can have you back. Happy to come back. At some point. Very interesting conversation.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you for the initial primer. Thank

[Jim McManus (Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs)]: Thank you. You.