Speech advocates say the bill is too broad and could sweep pornography that should be permissible into the category of the illegal. They also worry about a chilling effect on those who wish to post or re-post content that is clearly allowed, from snapshots of family and friends on topless beaches to photos in adult magazines. A narrower law cracking down only on originators of offending content and requiring an intent to harm the subject, they say, would be a better solution.

But bill supporters say the legislation is already narrow enough. Ms. Speier seeks to punish two types of players: those who knowingly post nonconsensual pornographic content and downstream distributors who knowingly solicit or share that content, often to make money. Limiting the scope to initial posters would let distributors act with impunity. Tightening the standard from the bill’s already-stringent “reckless disregard” rule would make it hard for victims to make a case in court.

As it is, the law takes care to shelter speech and privacy at the same time. It includes an exception for material gathered in a public setting without an expectation of privacy and for material that serves a public interest, which could include artistic, historical or news value.