All this law does is give victims the right to sue people who make involuntary porn of them, and clearly defines AI technology as something that you can sue over when it is used to simulate your likeness.

The 1st amendment doesn't matter for a civil matter like this. Libel and Slander are protected forms of speech, but you are still liable for the damage done when you intentionally lie about people. Likewise, you have the right to make whatever kind of art you want, but if you make art depicting private citizens in a pornographic context without their consent, the person you are depicting now has the right to seek legal damages for your abuse.

I am a firm believer in the concept that "Your rights end where mine begin". You have the right to make art of me if you please, and I have the right to seek damages from you if your art slanders, defames, or sexualizes me in a pornographic way without my consent. Those are things that do real world damage, so I see no issue with victims of these things being given a voice.

The bill only applies where there is an “intent to distribute”

That's a predicate for any law bound to the Commerce Clause. You need to demonstrate the regulation is being applied to interstate traffic. Anything else would be limited to state/municipal regulations.

The bill talks about damages being calculated based on the profit of the defendant

That's arguably a better rule than the more traditional flat-fee penalties, as it curbs the impulse to treat violations as cost-of-business. A firm that makes $1B/year isn't going to blink at a handful of $1000 judgements.

The bill also states that you can’t label the image as AI generated or rely on the context of publication to avoid running afoul of this law.

A revenge-porn law that can be evaded by asserting "This isn't Taylor Swift, its Tay Swiff and any resemblance of an existing celebrity is purely coincidental" would be toothless. We already apply these rules for traditional animated assets. You'd be liable for producing an animated short staring "Definitely Not Mickey Mouse" under the same reasoning.

This doesn't prevent you from creating a unique art asset. And certainly there's a superabundance of original pornographic art models and porn models generated with the consent of the living model. The hitch here is obvious, though. You're presumed to own your own likeness.

My biggest complaint is that it only seems to apply to pornography. And I suspect we'll see people challenge the application of the law by producing "parody" porn or "news commentary" porn. What the SCOTUS does with that remains to be seen.

Oh boo hoo you can't go in a movie theater and yell "fire" we are so oppressed