What is the statutory definition of a minor under Nevada CSAM laws?
Executive summary
Nevada’s 2025 legislative session focused on updating child sexual abuse material (CSAM) law to capture AI-generated and computer-altered content and to modernize language; bills discussed include Senate Bill 263 and Assembly Bill 35, which seek to treat AI-generated material “virtually indistinguishable” from real CSAM as illegal and to define content by whether “an ordinary person” would conclude it depicts an actual minor [1] [2]. Available sources do not quote a single consolidated statutory line that reads “minor = X years,” but reporting and bill language show lawmakers and the Attorney General framing protections around persons under 18 and expanding definitions of “sexual offense against a child” [3] [4] [5].
1. Legislative momentum: bills aim to modernize what counts as CSAM
Nevada lawmakers in 2025 pursued statutes that update outdated terms like “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse material” and explicitly criminalize AI-generated CSAM that is “virtually indistinguishable” from real abuse images—language reported in coverage of Senate Bill 263 and Assembly Bill 35 [1] [4]. Minutes from the Senate Judiciary Committee show Senate Bill 263 was presented as closing a “dangerous gap” by making generative AI (GAI) CSAM fall squarely within existing CSAM prohibitions [2].
2. How “minor” is being treated in proposals and related bills
Reporting and bill-tracking summaries indicate an explicit legislative focus on persons under 18 in several measures: at least one bill provides exceptions or special treatment tied to the under-18 threshold, and broader statutory updates aim to broaden protections for children defined across multiple sexual-offense statutes [3] [5]. However, the sources do not provide a verbatim single statutory definition from Nevada’s Revised Statutes that states “minor means…,” so the exact codified phrasing in existing NRS provisions or final enacted language is not quoted in this reporting (not found in current reporting).
3. The “ordinary person” test and AI images
Senate Bill 263’s reported drafting includes a practical evidentiary standard: content that an “ordinary person” would conclude depicts an actual minor would be captured as illegal when it is AI-created but indistinguishable from real CSAM [1]. This signals lawmakers prefer a community-standard or objective-perception test to bridge forensic uncertainty about synthetic images—an approach debated elsewhere as balancing enforcement with free-expression and tech-error risks [1] [2].
4. Enforcement practice and age thresholds shown in arrests and prosecutions
Local law-enforcement press accounts and prosecutions cited in the sources show Nevada agents routinely charging offenses tied to specific age thresholds—references include charges for “visual pornography of a person under 16” in a 2024 ICAC arrest and other CSAM prosecutions listing very young victims [6] [7]. Those enforcement examples show prosecutors apply particular age cutoffs in charging decisions, but the articles do not summarize how those cutoffs interact with any broader “minor” definition across all statutes [6] [7].
5. How federal law and advocacy context shape state choices
Federal statutes—cited in related advocacy reporting—already define CSAM and criminalize computer-generated or altered material when it is indistinguishable from real minors; that national framework has prompted states, including Nevada, to align or close perceived gaps [8]. National advocates and groups tracking state laws documented an uptick in state-level criminalization of AI/edited CSAM in 2024–2025, and Nevada’s bills are presented in that larger movement [9].
6. Competing perspectives and implicit agendas
Sources show bipartisan political interest in stronger online protections for youth, but also reveal differing priorities: law enforcement and the Attorney General push expansive, clear standards to aid investigations and prosecutions [2] [4], while civil-liberty and technology stakeholders—mentioned indirectly via broader national debates—often warn about overbroad language catching protected speech or synthetic depictions without victims (available sources do not mention specific Nevada civil-liberty objections). Watch for legislative trade-offs: clearer criminal statutes help prosecutors but risk ensnaring lawful speech or false positives in AI detection [1] [9].
7. What the reporting does and does not settle
Reporting confirms Nevada lawmakers sought to define and criminalize AI-generated CSAM, invoke an “ordinary person” perception test, and that bills reference persons under 18 in key contexts [1] [3] [2] [4]. The sources do not present the final statutory text or a single, authoritative Nevada Revised Statutes line that defines the word “minor” across all CSAM-related offenses; for that, readers must consult the enacted NRS language or legislative text beyond these articles (not found in current reporting).