US appeals court rules private possession of AI-generated CSAM protected by First Amendment
A federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment protects private possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material that does not depict real children, based on Supreme Court precedent from 1969. The decision created a legal gap where producing and distributing such material remains prosecutable, but private possession is protected. Two judges expressed concern about the ruling's implications given advancing AI technology.
What happened
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the First Amendment protects private possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM) that does not depict real children. Steven Anderegg, a Wisconsin man, was accused of using an AI image generator to create thousands of sexually explicit images depicting children. Meta reported to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that an Instagram user had sent apparent AI-generated CSAM to an account belonging to a minor, which prompted the investigation.
Reported impact
Two judges acknowledged the decision created concerning legal implications. Judge John Lee wrote: 'We now live in an age where GenAI models can render images depicting the abuse of virtual children that are virtually indistinguishable from those depicting the abuse of actual children.'
Index analysis
The court found that existing Supreme Court precedent dating to 1969 prevents the government from criminalizing the private possession of AI-generated CSAM, even though the production and distribution of such material remain prosecutable offenses. The decision exposes a gap between decades-old Supreme Court precedent and modern artificial intelligence technology.
Governance controls
The charges against Anderegg involving production, distribution of AI-generated CSAM, and allegedly sending the material to a 15-year-old boy remain pending. The court emphasized that while private possession of AI-generated material is protected, the conduct of creating and distributing it remains prosecutable.
Classification
Sources and evidence
This record was researched and written by the Index, based on the following original reporting.