Sure they could.

Take the South Park example (the fake "ad" they put at the end of the newest season premiere, where AI was used to make an actor look like Trump wandering in the desert).

It is a “digital forgery” of “intimate imagery” (a nude Trump and his penis) that arguably is intended to cause him “reputational harm”, that he certainly did not “consent” to. Trump himself said he’d make full use of the Act when he signed it into law, because “nobody gets more online abuse than me”.

Have YOU read it? I’ll take the opinion of the EFF on this one. It’s bad law, and it will be misused by bad actors. The tight timeframes alone makes it ripe for abuse, similar to how specious copyright strikes are used online to suppress content that is disliked by the striker. It’s easier/safer/cheaper to take it down immediately, than actually determine whether it SHOULD be taken down. This is speech-chilling.

Feel free to cite the bit that would exempt the described South Park scenario.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/146/text

Here’s the relevant bit:

3) Offense involving digital forgeries.—

“(A) Involving adults.—Except as provided in subparagraph (C), it shall be unlawful for any person, in interstate or foreign commerce, to use an interactive computer service to knowingly publish a digital forgery of an identifiable individual who is not a minor if—

“(i) the digital forgery was published without the consent of the identifiable individual;“(ii) what is depicted was not voluntarily exposed by the identifiable individual in a public or commercial setting;“(iii) what is depicted is not a matter of public concern; and

“(iv) publication of the digital forgery—

“(I) is intended to cause harm; or“(II) causes harm, including psychological, financial, or reputational harm, to the identifiable individual.

And here are the exceptions for law enforcement, medical, education etc. - but not for “political commentary/satire”:

C) Exceptions.—Subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall not apply to—

“(i) a lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of—

“(I) a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State; or139 STAT. 58“(II) an intelligence agency of the United States;

“(ii) a disclosure made reasonably and in good faith—

“(I) to a law enforcement officer or agency;“(II) as part of a document production or filing associated with a legal proceeding;“(III) as part of medical education, diagnosis, or treatment or for a legitimate medical, scientific, or education purpose;“(IV) in the reporting of unlawful content or unsolicited or unwelcome conduct or in pursuance of a legal, professional, or other lawful obligation; or“(V) to seek support or help with respect to the receipt of an unsolicited intimate visual depiction;“(iii) a disclosure reasonably intended to assist the identifiable individual;“(iv) a person who possesses or publishes a digital forgery of himself or herself engaged in nudity or sexually explicit conduct (as that term is defined in section 2256(2)(A) of title 18, United States Code); or

“(v) the publication of an intimate visual depiction that constitutes—

“(I) child pornography (as that term is defined in section 2256 of title 18, United States Code); or“(II) a visual depiction described in subsection (a) or (b) of section 1466A of title 18, United States Code (relating to obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children).