Judge Rules Possession of AI-Generated CSAM May Be First Amendment Protected
A federal judge ruled that possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material may be protected by the First Amendment in some cases, dismissing one charge against a Wisconsin man who allegedly used Stable Diffusion to create over 13,000 such images. The Justice Department has appealed, and the case could have significant implications for how AI-generated CSAM is legally treated.
What happened
Steven Anderegg, 42, of Holmen, Wisconsin, was charged in May 2024 with producing, distributing, and possessing obscene visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Prosecutors alleged he used Stable Diffusion to create over 13,000 AI-generated images depicting child sexual abuse by entering text prompts into the system.
In February 2025, U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson issued a ruling in response to Anderegg's motion to dismiss. Peterson allowed three charges to proceed but dismissed one charge, stating that the First Amendment protects the possession of 'virtual child pornography' in one's home. The Justice Department appealed the decision on March 3, 2025.
Reported impact
Child safety advocates have cited AI-generated child sexual abuse material as a top concern. The ruling could have major implications for the future legal treatment of AI-generated CSAM if upheld by higher courts, potentially preventing prosecutors from successfully charging some people with private possession of such material.
Index analysis
The case centers on the application of the 1969 Supreme Court decision Stanley v. Georgia, which prohibited criminalizing obscene materials possessed in the home, to AI-generated child sexual abuse imagery. The government argued that a 2003 statute applies to obscene virtual child pornography due to concerns that offenders will use such material to groom actual minors.
Governance controls
Stable Diffusion, the AI system used to generate the images, does not appear to have had safeguards that prevented its use for generating child sexual abuse material in this case.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.