Hawaii
Hawaii Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 16, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 16, 2026. · 6 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Hawaii has one enacted criminal deepfake law: HRS 711-1110.9, amended in 2021, makes creating or distributing nonconsensual deepfake sexual images a class C felony. The state's 2024 election deepfake law was permanently struck down by a federal court in January 2026 on First Amendment grounds. Hawaii's newest AI law, Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137), was signed by Gov. Josh Green on July 14, 2026, and took effect immediately; it creates a civil prohibition on harmful, nonconsensual AI-generated digital imitations of real people.
Is It Illegal to Make a Deepfake of Someone in Hawaii?
Yes, in the sexual and intimate context it is a class C felony. For commercial voice or likeness cloning, civil claims exist under the state's right-of-publicity statute. The election deepfake bucket is currently unregulated after the 2024 law was struck down.
Hawaii addresses the three major deepfake categories unevenly. The state's criminal deepfake law (HRS 711-1110.9) is the oldest and strongest: it covers nonconsensual sexual deepfakes as a serious felony. Right-of-publicity law provides a civil pathway for commercial voice and likeness theft but has no AI-specific update. Election deepfakes are the largest gap: Act 191 (2024) was permanently blocked by a federal court in January 2026, leaving no state-level election deepfake prohibition in force.
Hawaii's newest AI law, Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137), was signed by Gov. Josh Green on July 14, 2026, and took effect the same day. It prohibits knowingly publishing a harmful, nonconsensual realistic AI-generated digital imitation of an identifiable person when the imitation is used in an advertisement, causes harm, or is used to commit fraud, defamation, or harassment, subject to exemptions for parody, satire, news reporting, and documentary or biographical works. It does not impose a disclosure requirement for AI-generated content in advertising. It creates a civil action for injunctive relief and damages.
What Hawaii law does not currently cover: a state civil cause of action for NCII deepfake victims (HRS 711-1110.9 is criminal only), election deepfakes (Act 191 enjoined), and purely non-commercial or non-sexual synthetic media.
Sexual and Intimate Deepfakes
Hawaii's primary deepfake law is HRS 711-1110.9, Violation of Privacy in the First Degree, which was amended by SB 309 (Act 59, Session Laws of Hawaii 2021, signed June 23, 2021). The amendment added intentional creation, disclosure, or threatened disclosure of deepfake sexual or intimate images to the list of conduct that constitutes first-degree privacy violation.
The statute covers what the legislature called "deep fake technology" used to place a non-consenting person's face or likeness onto nude or sexually explicit images or video. A person commits the offense when they intentionally create, disclose, or threaten to disclose a deepfake depicting another person nude or engaged in sexual conduct, with intent to substantially harm that person's health, safety, business, career, education, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships, or as an act of revenge or retribution. The penalty is a class C felony, which in Hawaii carries up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.
The statute's real limitation is its intent element, not its technology coverage. The text reaches any image of a "composite fictitious person" that includes the recognizable physical characteristics of a known person, which covers fully synthetic images as well as face swaps. But the offense applies only when the image is made or disclosed with intent to substantially harm the depicted person, or as an act of revenge or retribution, so harmful deepfakes created without provable intent to harm may fall outside it. This gap is one reason HB 2137 was introduced.
For minors, Hawaii's child pornography statutes (HRS 707-750, 707-751, and 707-752) each define child pornography as any "pornographic visual representation" of sexual conduct, expressly including a representation that has been "created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexual conduct," which is how AI-edited images of a real, identifiable minor are reached by Hawaii law. Federal CSAM law under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) fills remaining gaps for AI-generated material indistinguishable from a real child.
Hawaii currently provides no state civil cause of action for deepfake NCII victims. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) partially fills this gap by giving victims a platform takedown right: covered platforms must remove flagged nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes, within 48 hours. Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137), effective July 14, 2026, now adds a state civil remedy for harmful, nonconsensual realistic AI-generated digital imitations, including damages up to $25,000 per advertisement or actual damages, though it is a general digital-imitation law rather than one written specifically for sexual deepfake NCII.
Election and Political Deepfakes
Hawaii has no enforceable election deepfake law. The state enacted Act 191 (SB 2687) on July 3, 2024, which prohibited recklessly distributing "materially deceptive media" of candidates during election season and required a disclosure statement for AI-manipulated content. The law was challenged immediately by The Babylon Bee, a satirical news website.
On January 30, 2026, U.S. District Judge Shanlyn A.S. Park permanently enjoined Act 191 as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The court found the law was content- and speaker-based, that its mandatory disclaimer requirement would "kill the joke" of satire and parody, and that Hawaii failed to show its goals could not be achieved through less restrictive means. The permanent injunction blocks enforcement of Act 191 entirely.
The ruling is consistent with a broader pattern: California's AB 2839 election deepfake law was also enjoined in August 2025 on First Amendment grounds. Election deepfake laws nationwide face ongoing constitutional risk.
Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137), signed July 14, 2026, prohibits certain harmful AI-generated digital imitations generally, including some used in advertising, but it does not recreate Act 191's election-specific prohibitions, does not restore a criminal or election-specific deepfake law, and imposes no advertising-disclosure requirement.
AI Voice Cloning and Digital Likeness
Hawaii has no AI-specific voice cloning statute, but its existing right-of-publicity law, HRS Chapter 482P (Hawaii Publicity Rights Act), already protects an individual's name, voice, signature, and likeness from unauthorized commercial use. HRS 482P-2 creates that property right, and HRS 482P-5 is the operative infringement provision: any person who uses a living or deceased individual's voice in goods, merchandise, or services entered into commerce in Hawaii, or in advertising, without consent has infringed the publicity right, with remedies under HRS 482P-6.
The voice protection under 482P is general and not specific to AI. It applies to unauthorized commercial use of voice regardless of the technology used to replicate it. This means an AI-generated voice clone used in a product advertisement without the depicted person's consent would fall within the statute's scope, even without a specific AI amendment.
The national reference point for AI voice legislation is Tennessee's ELVIS Act (Tenn. Code Ann. 47-25-1101 et seq., effective July 1, 2024), which was the first state law to expressly extend right-of-publicity protections to AI voice simulations. Hawaii's HRS 482P reaches a similar result for commercial uses through its voice-inclusive language, but without the AI-specific provisions or the service-provider safe harbors that Tennessee built into the ELVIS Act.
Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137), signed July 14, 2026, and effective immediately, goes further: it prohibits publishing a harmful, nonconsensual realistic AI-generated digital imitation of a person's voice, face, or likeness when used in an advertisement, when it causes harm, or when used to commit fraud, defamation, or harassment, and gives the individual a civil action for injunctive relief and damages. It does not impose an advertising-disclosure requirement. For a comparison of Hawaii's broader AI regulation landscape, see Hawaii AI Laws, which covers AI regulation beyond the deepfake context.
Federal Law That Applies in Hawaii
Several federal laws apply to deepfakes in Hawaii regardless of state law gaps.
The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is the first federal law specifically targeting nonconsensual intimate visual depictions of adults and minors, expressly covering AI-generated deepfakes as "digital forgeries." It is a federal crime to knowingly publish such material, with penalties of up to two years in prison (three years if the victim is a minor). The law requires platforms to remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's takedown notice, enforced by the FTC. This law directly supplements HRS 711-1110.9 and provides the platform-removal mechanism Hawaii's state law lacks.
For AI-generated child sexual abuse material, federal law under 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) (PROTECT Act, 2003) covers computer-generated images that are indistinguishable from a real minor. There is no First Amendment defense for indistinguishable material. This provides a parallel federal prosecution layer for conduct that also falls under Hawaii's HRS 707-751.
The FCC ruled in February 2024 (FCC Order 24-17) that AI-generated voices in robocalls are "artificial" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, making AI voice-clone calls to phone numbers without prior express consent illegal nationwide. This applies in Hawaii regardless of whether any state statute covers AI voice fraud.
The FTC's impersonation rule (16 CFR Part 461, effective April 1, 2024) prohibits deceptive impersonation of government entities and businesses, including via AI voice cloning. The extension of that rule to individual impersonation remains a proposed rulemaking and is not yet final.
Two additional federal bills are still pending and are NOT law: the DEFIANCE Act (S.1837, 119th Congress) would create a federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfake victims with liquidated damages of $150,000, and the NO FAKES Act of 2025 (S.1367, 119th Congress) would create a federal right of publicity for voice and likeness against unauthorized AI digital replicas. The DEFIANCE Act passed the Senate by unanimous consent on January 13, 2026, but still awaits a House vote; the NO FAKES Act has not passed either chamber as of mid-2026. For background on the DEFIANCE Act proposal, see the coverage of the DEFIANCE Act.
What Victims Can Do
A victim of a deepfake in Hawaii has several options depending on the type of harm.
For sexual deepfakes, the fastest route is a platform takedown under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act. Platforms must remove flagged nonconsensual intimate images, including AI-generated deepfakes, within 48 hours of a victim's notice submission. No court order or police report is required to start this process.
For criminal enforcement, victims can report to Honolulu Police Department or the relevant county police department, or to the Hawaii Attorney General's office. HRS 711-1110.9 is a class C felony, so prosecutors have significant charging authority. The burden of proof requires showing intentional creation or disclosure with intent to substantially harm the victim, or as an act of revenge or retribution.
Hawaii's criminal deepfake statute, HRS 711-1110.9, does not itself create a civil cause of action for NCII victims. Common law privacy torts, including intrusion upon seclusion and public disclosure of private facts, may be available depending on the circumstances. Since Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137) took effect on July 14, 2026, victims also have a statutory civil remedy for a harmful, nonconsensual realistic AI-generated digital imitation: injunctive relief, damages up to $25,000 per advertisement or actual damages, punitive damages where malice is shown, and attorneys' fees.
For commercial AI voice or likeness use without consent, a civil claim under HRS 482P is available. The standard path is a demand letter followed by civil litigation if necessary. Consult an attorney experienced in intellectual property or privacy law for any specific situation.
For context on Hawaii's broader digital privacy framework, see Hawaii Recording Laws, which covers consent rules for audio and video recording in the state.
Penalty Summary
| Conduct | Law | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Deepfake sexual/nude image: create or disclose with intent to harm or as revenge | HRS 711-1110.9 (Act 59, 2021) | Class C felony: up to 5 years prison, up to $10,000 fine |
| Harmful nonconsensual realistic AI digital imitation: used in an ad, causing harm, or used for fraud, defamation, or harassment | Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137) | Civil: injunctive relief, damages up to $25,000 per ad or actual damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees |
| Election deepfake (Act 191) | ENJOINED Jan. 30, 2026 | Not enforceable |
| Unauthorized commercial use of AI voice or likeness | HRS 482P-5 (infringement); remedies under HRS 482P-6 | Civil liability: greater of $10,000 or actual damages, plus attributable profits; injunctive relief |
| Publishing nonconsensual intimate deepfake (federal) | TAKE IT DOWN Act, P.L. 119-12 (2025) | Up to 2 years federal prison (3 years if victim is minor) |
| AI-generated CSAM (federal) | 18 U.S.C. 2256(8)(B) (PROTECT Act) | Federal felony |
| AI voice robocalls without consent (federal) | TCPA via FCC Order 24-17 (2024) | FCC enforcement; civil suits |
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information about Hawaii deepfake and AI laws as of 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws in this area are changing rapidly, and Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137) may be interpreted or amended further before the end of 2026. Consult a licensed Hawaii attorney for advice about your specific situation.
For the full 50-state comparison, see Deepfake and AI Voice Cloning Laws by State.
- Hawaii AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Hawaii Alimony Laws
- Hawaii At-Will Employment Laws
- Hawaii Car Accident Laws
- Hawaii Car Seat Laws
- Hawaii Child Custody Laws
- Hawaii Child Support Laws
- Hawaii Common Law Marriage Laws
- Hawaii Dashcam Laws
- Hawaii Data Privacy Laws
- Hawaii Divorce Laws
- Hawaii Dog Bite Laws
- Hawaii Drone Laws
- Hawaii Emancipation Laws
- Hawaii Employee Monitoring Laws
- Hawaii Expungement Laws
More Hawaii Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it illegal to make a deepfake of someone in Hawaii?
Yes, in the sexual or intimate context. HRS 711-1110.9 (amended 2021) makes it a class C felony to intentionally create or disclose a deepfake depicting someone in the nude or engaged in sexual conduct, with intent to substantially harm that person or as an act of revenge or retribution. Commercially using an AI replica of someone's voice or likeness without consent also creates civil liability under Hawaii's right-of-publicity statute (HRS 482P). Non-sexual, non-commercial deepfakes may not be covered by current law.
Is deepfake porn a crime in Hawaii?
Yes. HRS 711-1110.9, amended in 2021, specifically covers deep fake images of persons depicted in the nude or engaged in sexual conduct, when made or disclosed with intent to substantially harm the person or as revenge. The offense is a class C felony, carrying up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act (2025) provides an additional federal criminal prohibition and a platform takedown right.
Can I sue someone for a deepfake in Hawaii?
Yes, in some circumstances. Since Act 247 (2026, formerly HB 2137) took effect on July 14, 2026, a victim of a harmful, nonconsensual realistic AI-generated digital imitation can sue for injunctive relief and damages up to $25,000 per advertisement or actual damages, plus punitive damages where malice is shown. HRS 711-1110.9, the sexual deepfake statute, remains criminal-only. Common law privacy torts may also be available. For commercial AI voice or likeness use, a civil claim exists under HRS 482P.
Are AI voice clones illegal in Hawaii?
Using an AI voice clone of an identifiable person for commercial purposes without their consent can create civil liability under Hawaii's Publicity Rights Act, which expressly protects an individual's voice from unauthorized commercial use: HRS 482P-2 creates the property right and HRS 482P-5 makes the unauthorized commercial use an infringement. There is no criminal statute specific to AI voice cloning. The federal FCC ruling (FCC 24-17, 2024) separately prohibits AI voice clone calls to phone numbers without prior express consent nationwide.
Does Hawaii have an election deepfake law?
Not currently. Hawaii enacted Act 191 (2024), which prohibited distributing materially deceptive media involving candidates during election season. However, a federal court permanently enjoined Act 191 on January 30, 2026, finding it an unconstitutional restriction on political speech, including satire and parody. No replacement election deepfake law has been enacted.
What is Act 247 (HB 2137) and is it law in Hawaii?
HB 2137 passed both chambers of the Hawaii Legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Josh Green on July 14, 2026, becoming Act 247, effective the same day. It prohibits knowingly publishing a harmful, nonconsensual realistic AI-generated digital imitation of a real person when the imitation is used in an advertisement, causes harm, or is used to commit fraud, defamation, or harassment, subject to exemptions for parody, satire, news reporting, and documentary or biographical works. It creates a civil action for injunctive relief and damages up to $25,000 per advertisement or actual damages, punitive damages where malice is shown, and attorneys' fees. It does not impose an advertising-disclosure requirement.
What is the TAKE IT DOWN Act and does it apply in Hawaii?
Yes, it applies in Hawaii. The TAKE IT DOWN Act (Public Law 119-12, signed May 19, 2025) is a federal law that makes it a crime to knowingly publish nonconsensual intimate images of adults and minors, expressly including AI-generated deepfakes. Platforms must remove flagged content within 48 hours of a victim's notice. It applies nationwide and provides the platform-removal mechanism that Hawaii's own criminal law lacks.
What should I do if someone posted a deepfake of me online?
Start with a platform takedown notice under the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act: platforms are required to remove nonconsensual intimate deepfakes within 48 hours. For criminal enforcement in Hawaii, report to local police or the Hawaii Attorney General's office; HRS 711-1110.9 is a class C felony. For commercial AI voice or likeness theft, consult an attorney about a civil claim under Hawaii's Publicity Rights Act (HRS 482P). A digital privacy or cyber harassment attorney can help assess all available options.
Updates
Corrected the NO FAKES Act citation to S.1367 (119th Congress), sharpened the Hawaii publicity rights pin cite to the infringement provision HRS 482P-5 with remedies under HRS 482P-6, replaced a federal phrase quoted as Hawaii law with Hawaii's own child pornography definition, and removed a stale currency date in the election deepfake section.
Updated this page to reflect that HB 2137 was signed into law as Act 247 on July 14, 2026 (effective immediately) rather than still pending before the governor, corrected the description of what the new law actually does (a civil prohibition on harmful nonconsensual AI-generated digital imitations, not an advertising-disclosure mandate), and added it to the penalty summary table.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Updated NO FAKES Act federal bill citation to S.4591 (119th Congress, "NO FAKES Act of 2026") and current Senate Judiciary Committee status.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 711: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 711-1110.9Violation of privacy in the first degreeIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of violation of privacy in the first degree if, except in the execution of a public duty or as authorized by law: (a) The person intentionally or knowingly installs or uses, or both, in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein, any device for observing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity in that place; (b) The person knowingly discloses or threatens to disclose an image or video of another identifiable person either in the nude, as defined in section 712‑1210, or engaging in sexual conduct, as defined in section 712-1210, without the consent of the depicted person, with intent to harm substantially the depicted person with respect to that person's health, safety, business, calling, career, education, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships or as an act of revenge or retribution; or (c) The person intentionally creates or discloses or threatens to disclose an image or video of a composite fictitious person depicted in the nude as defined in section 712-1210, or engaged in sexual conduct as defined in section 712-1210, that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hawaii courts have construed HRS 711-1110.9 in the Kaakimaka litigation. State v. Kaakimaka (2026) held subsection (1)(a) requires the device, or the person using it, to be inside the private place, and reversed a conviction where the phone stayed outside. A 2025 Kaakimaka opinion upheld the charge as drawn.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Kaakimaka (Hawaii Supreme Court 2026)✓A man stood outside a vacation home and aimed his phone at a bathroom window where a 15-year-old was showering; the court held the statute requires the device or the person using it to be inside the private place, found the evidence insufficient, and reversed the conviction.
- State v. Kaakimaka. ICA s.d.o., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 297. Opinion by Hiraoka, J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Opinion by Guidry J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/16/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025. S.Ct. Amended Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025 [ada]. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2025)✓Charged with recording a girl showering, the defendant argued his indictment was defective because it did not define "private place"; the court held that term is an attendant circumstance whose statutory definition need not be alleged, and upheld the charge.
- State v. Olive (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2025)“…and (b). These offenses are classified as Class C felonies. HRS § 711-1110.9(2) (2014 & 2018 Supp.). HR…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules, Hawaii Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Hawaii Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 482P: PUBLICITY RIGHTS
§ 482P-2Property right in use of name, voice, signature, or likenessIn force
Every individual or personality has a property right in the use of the individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, and likeness. The right shall be deemed to have existed before the enactment of this chapter, including at and after the time of death of any deceased individual or deceased personality, and shall continue to exist for a fixed period of time after death, as prescribed in section 482P-4. This right shall be freely transferable, assignable, and licensable, in whole or in part, by any otherwise permissible form of inter vivos or testamentary transfer, including without limitation a will or other testamentary instrument, trust, contract, community property agreement, or cotenancy with survivorship provisions or payable-on-death provisions, whether the will or other testamentary instrument, trust, contract, community property agreement, or cotenancy document is entered into or executed by the deceased individual or deceased personality or by any subsequent owner of the deceased individual's or deceased personality's rights as recognized by this chapter; or, if none is applicable, then the owner of the rights shall be determined under the laws of intestate…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
§ 482P-5Infringement of right; use without consent; profit or not for profitIn force
Except as provided in section 482P-7, any person who uses or authorizes the use of a living or deceased individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, or likeness, on or in goods, merchandise, or services entered into commerce in this State, or for purposes of advertising products, merchandise, goods, or services, or for purposes of fund-raising or solicitation of donations, or if any person disseminates or publishes advertisements in this State that contain a living or deceased individual's or personality's name, voice, signature, or likeness, without express or implied consent of the owner of the right, has infringed a publicity right under this chapter. An infringement may occur under this section without regard to whether the use or activity is for profit or not for profit. [L Sp 2009, c 28, pt of §2]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 2 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Lightbourne v. Printroom Inc. (District Court, C.D. California 2015, 307 F.R.D. 593)“…connection with an advertisement or solicitation. Compare Haw.Rev.Stat. § 482P-5 (prohibiting unauthorized use of an ind…”
- Wallen v. Consumer Reports, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)“…this chapter. Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 482P-5.…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 482P-6Infringement of right; circuit courts; injunctions; liability for damages and profits; impoundment; destruction; attorneys' feesIn force
(a) The circuit courts of this State may grant injunctions on reasonable terms to prevent or restrain the unauthorized use of a right recognized by this chapter. (b) Any person who infringes a right granted by this chapter shall be liable for the greater of $10,000 or the actual damages sustained as a result of the infringement, and any profits that are attributable to the infringement and not taken into account when calculating actual damages; provided that each search of an individual's name on an internet search engine shall be exempt from the statutory damages identified in this subsection. To prove profits under this subsection, the injured party or parties may submit proof of gross revenues attributable to the infringement, and the infringing party may be required by the court to provide evidence of the infringing party's deductible expenses. For the purposes of computing statutory damages, the use of a name, voice, signature, or likeness constitutes a single act of infringement regardless of the number of copies made or the number of times the name, voice, signature, or likeness is displayed.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 707: OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
§ 707-751Promoting child abuse in the second degreeIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of promoting child abuse in the second degree if, knowing or having reason to know its character and content, the person: (a) Disseminates child pornography; (b) Reproduces child pornography with intent to disseminate; (c) Disseminates any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography; (d) Disseminates any pornographic material which employs, uses, or otherwise contains a minor engaging in or assisting others to engage in sexual conduct; or (e) Possesses thirty or more images of any form of child pornography, and the content of at least one image contains one or more of the following: (i) A minor who is younger than the age of twelve; (ii) Sadomasochistic abuse of a minor; or (iii) Bestiality involving a minor.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Bunag (Hawaii Supreme Court 2026)“…016); count 3, promoting child abuse in the second degree, HRS § 707-751(1)(a) (2014 & Supp. 2016); and count 4…”
- State v. Offerman (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2008, 188 P.3d 831)“…NOTES [1] The Honorable Steven S. Alm presided. [2] HRS § 707-751(1)(a) (Supp. 2007) provides: § 707-7…”
- New York v. Ferber (Supreme Court of the United States 1982, 458 U.S. 747)“…it. 11, §§1108, 1109 (1979); Fla. Stat. §847.014 (1981); Haw. Rev. Stat. §707-751 (Supp. 1981); Ky. Rev. Stat. §§531.320…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Pornography Laws (2026): No Age-Verification Law, Yet, Hawaii Sexting Laws: Legal Consequences and Penalties
§ 707-752Promoting child abuse in the third degreeIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of promoting child abuse in the third degree if, knowing or having reason to know its character and content, the person possesses: (a) Child pornography; (b) Any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer disk, electronically stored data, or any other material that contains an image of child pornography; or (c) Any pornographic material that employs, uses, or otherwise contains a minor engaging in or assisting others to engage in sexual conduct. (2) As used in this section: "Child pornography" means any pornographic visual representation, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexual conduct, if: (a) The pornographic production of the visual representation involves the use of a minor engaging in sexual conduct; or (b) The pornographic visual representation has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexual conduct. "Community standards" means the standards of the State. "Computer" shall have the same meaning as in section 708-890.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 9 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. McKnight. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2013, 131 Haw. 379)“…Promoting Child Abuse in the Third Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-752(l)(a). The charges were severed, and th…”
- State v. Bunag (Hawaii Supreme Court 2026)“…and count 4, promoting child abuse in the third degree, HRS § 707-752(1)(b) (2014 & Supp. 2016). In May…”
- State v. SYSOMBOUN-MAKILAN (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2009, 204 P.3d 500)“…Promoting Child Abuse in the Third Degree, in violation of HRS § 707-752 (1) (a) (Supp. 2008). On January 11, 20…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 707-750Promoting child abuse in the first degreeIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of promoting child abuse in the first degree if, knowing or having reason to know its character and content, the person: (a) Produces or participates in the preparation of child pornography; (b) Produces or participates in the preparation of pornographic material that employs, uses, or otherwise contains a minor engaging in or assisting others to engage in sexual conduct; or (c) Engages in a pornographic performance that employs, uses, or otherwise contains a minor engaging in or assisting others to engage in sexual conduct. (2) As used in this section: "Child pornography" means any pornographic visual representation, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexual conduct, if: (a) The pornographic production of such visual representation involves the use of a minor engaging in sexual conduct; or (b) The pornographic visual representation has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexual conduct. "Community standards" means the standards of the State.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Chun (Hawaii Supreme Court 2003, 102 Haw. 383)“…s those terms are defined in section 707-700." In addition, HRS §§ 707-750 (Supp.1998) ("Promoting child abuse in…”
- Barnett v. State (Hawaii Supreme Court 1999, 91 Haw. 20)“…1997 before briefs were submitted. 2 . HRS § 707-750(1) provides: Promoting child a…”
- State v. Jumila (Hawaii Supreme Court 1998, 87 Haw. 1)“…HRS § 707-730; Promoting Child Abuse in the First Degree, HRS § 707-750; Extortion with Firearms, Explosives, a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2256Definitions for chapterIn forcecited in 56 of our articles
For the purposes of this chapter, the term— “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years; Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated— sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person; For purposes of subsection 8(B) 1 So in original. Probably should be “(8)(B)”.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 1,142 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002) held the child pornography definitions in 2256(8)(B) and (8)(D), reaching virtual and pandered images, overbroad under the First Amendment. United States v. Williams (2008) construed sexually explicit conduct in 2256(2)(A), reading simulated to require explicit portrayal of the act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Williams (Supreme Court of the United States 2008, 553 U.S. 285)✓Williams posted a chat-room link to photos of real children and was convicted of pandering. Upholding that ban, the Court read section 2256(2)(A)'s definition of sexually explicit conduct as tracking the one approved in Ferber, and said material must in fact meet it.
- Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (Supreme Court of the United States 2002, 535 U.S. 234)✓An adult-entertainment trade group, a nudist-lifestyle publisher, a painter and a photographer challenged the CPPA. The Court held sections 2256(8)(B) and 2256(8)(D), reaching images that only appear to be of minors or are pandered that way, overbroad and unconstitutional.
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1994, 513 U.S. 64)✓A distributor sold tapes of an actress filmed before she turned 18. Besides reading 'knowingly' in section 2252 to reach the performer's age, the Court rejected as insubstantial the claim that section 2256 is vague and overbroad for setting majority at 18 and using 'lascivious.'
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Deepfake & AI Voice Cloning Laws by State (2026), Alaska Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026), Arizona Deepfake Laws: AI Images, Voice Cloning & Penalties (2026)
Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 47, Chapter 25, Part 11: Protection of Personal Rights (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024)
§ 47-25-1101Short titleIn forcecited in 54 of our articles
This part shall be known and may be cited as the “Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and Image Security Act of 2024.” History Acts 1984, ch. 945, § 1; 2024, ch. 588, § 1.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2021-05-21 · Read the full text in our law library
Cited in 5 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2011
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts cite 47-25-1101 et seq. as the Personal Rights Protection Act of 1984. Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (1996) applied a one-year limitations period because the Act supplies none, and STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (1987) said nothing in the Act limits publicity rights vested before its effective date.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Gracey v. Maddin (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1989, 769 S.W.2d 497)✓A widow sued her late husband's law firm under the Personal Rights Protection Act to stop its use of his surname; the Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction on partnership and name-assignment grounds, and the majority opinion never applied the Act's own provisions.
- STATE EX REL. ELVIS PRESLEY INTL. MEMORIAL FOUNDATION v. Crowell (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1987, 733 S.W.2d 89)✓Two nonprofits fought over using Elvis Presley's name in their corporate names; the court rested his descendible right of publicity on Tennessee common law rather than the Personal Rights Protection Act, and said nothing in the Act limits rights vested before its effective date.
- Gibbons v. Schwartz-Nobel (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 1996, 928 S.W.2d 922)✓A woman sued over a book that named her and printed her childhood photo, and over a related TV film; the Court of Appeals held the Personal Rights Protection Act sets no limitations period of its own, applied the one year period, and affirmed summary judgment.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Tennessee Laws on Recording in Public: What You Can and Cannot Film, Tennessee Video Recording Laws: What Is Legal and What Is Not, Tennessee Workplace Recording Laws: Employee and Employer Rights
Explore the law
This article also draws on these acts and chapters (opening at their first section): Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 482P: PUBLICITY RIGHTS § 482P-1 (Definitions)
Related law for further reading — not part of this article’s citations.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Hawaii SB 309 (Act 59, Session Laws 2021) - Amendment to HRS 711-1110.9 adding deepfake criminal offense(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- TAKE IT DOWN Act, Public Law 119-12 (S.146, 119th Congress, signed May 19, 2025)(congress.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2256 - Federal CSAM definition covering AI-generated images (PROTECT Act 2003)(law.cornell.edu)
- FCC Order 24-17 (Feb. 2024) - AI-Generated Voices in Robocalls Declared Artificial under TCPA(fcc.gov).gov
- DEFIANCE Act, S.1837 (119th Congress, 2025) - proposed federal civil cause of action for sexual deepfakes (PENDING, not law)(congress.gov).gov
- Hawaii Act 247 (2026), enacted from HB 2137 CD1 - Artificial Intelligence; Digital Imitation; Personal Likeness; Protections, signed into law by Gov. Josh Green on July 14, 2026(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- Hawaii HRS Chapter 482P - Publicity Rights Act (voice, name, and likeness protection)(capitol.hawaii.gov).gov
- NO FAKES Act of 2025, S.1367 (119th Congress) - official bill text, introduced April 9, 2025 (PENDING, not law)(congress.gov)
- HRS 482P-5 - Infringement of publicity right; use without consent (the operative provision; remedies at HRS 482P-6)(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 707-751 - Promoting child abuse in the second degree, defining child pornography to include a pornographic visual representation created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexual conduct(capitol.hawaii.gov)