It's a fairly common element of revenge porn laws in the states, and I think it is likely to survive review because it does not criminalize the content as content, but the dissemination of it with the intent and effect of causing harm. The Oregon law being amended to add coverage of digital fakes criminalizes nonconsensual dissemination of images covered where both the intent exists that the subject of the images be "harassed, humiliated or injures" and a reasonable person would, in fact, be "harassed, humiliated or injured" by the dissemination of the images.

And fake images are probably less protected than real images here, where, again, the prohibition is not on the content, but its use as a tool to cause intentional harm.

I think there is a close analogy to criminal libel here, which has generally been found to be Constitutional in cases of intentional misrepresentation. It would be difficult to argue that this particular case is anything but intentional misrepresentation of the victim.

It should be illegal as long as the AI-generated images are tied to the victim. If it's presented as fake/fictional, it's probably fine. If it's presented as photos of person X, even if they are not real photos, it's likely illegal.

Courts have generally found that non-consensual intimate imagery isn't fully protected speech when it causes identifiable harm, similar to defamation or true threats - several similar state laws have already survived initial constitutional challenges.

Really? I am not a lawyer, but from what I recall this would fall squarely under defamatory speech.

Non-consensual sexualization is not protected speech.

This is not a free speech issue. There are limitations to free speech. While the framers would have never conceived of this kind of issue, this definitely falls within the okay to make illegal in my books.