Agreed. However, it also appears to apply too broadly:

The letter explains that the bill’s “takedown” provision applies to a much broader category of content—potentially any images involving intimate or sexual content at all—than the narrower NCII definitions found elsewhere in the bill. The bill contains no protections against frivolous or bad-faith takedown requests. Lawful content—including satire, journalism, and political speech—could be wrongly censored.

Can't forget how the rich get legal representation while the poors do not. There is no justice in this country until legal counsel is affordable and accessible to everyone.