Court ruling: AI-generated child sexual abuse images protected for private possession, not distribution

A recent court ruling on AI-generated child sexual exploitation material highlights the delicate balance between First Amendment protections and fighting digital child abuse. The decision in a case involving AI-created obscene images establishes important precedent for how the legal system will address synthetic child sexual abuse material, while clarifying that prosecutors have effective tools to pursue offenders despite constitutional constraints on criminalizing private possession.

The legal distinction: A U.S. district court opinion differentiates between private possession of AI-generated obscene material and acts of production or distribution, establishing important boundaries for prosecutions in the emerging field of synthetic child sexual abuse material.

• The court dismissed a charge against defendant Steven Anderegg for private possession of AI-generated obscene images, citing First Amendment protections established in Stanley v. Georgia.
• However, the court allowed prosecution to proceed on charges related to production and distribution of the same AI-generated content, as well as transferring obscene material to a minor.
• This ruling reinforces that while private possession of certain obscene materials has constitutional protection, the government maintains significant legal authority to prosecute creation and distribution.

Why this matters: The ruling addresses a critical legal gap as generative AI makes creating realistic but synthetic child sexual abuse imagery increasingly accessible, forcing courts to navigate between free speech protections and child protection.

• As predicted in a February paper by the article’s author, prosecutors are turning to the federal child obscenity statute (18 U.S.C. § 1466A) which, unlike traditional CSAM laws, doesn’t require that depicted minors “actually exist.”
• The case stems from allegations that Anderegg used Stable Diffusion to create obscene images of minors and sent them to a teenage boy via Instagram, prompting Meta to report his account.

Behind the legal reasoning: The court’s distinction between possession and production highlights constitutional boundaries in addressing AI-generated harmful content.

• The court’s opinion reaffirms the Stanley v. Georgia precedent that the government cannot criminalize the private possession of obscene material, even when that material depicts minors in sexual situations.
• This First Amendment protection extends to AI-generated obscene imagery despite its harmful nature, limiting government’s ability to criminalize certain forms of private digital content.

The implications: Despite constraints on prosecuting private possession, the ruling demonstrates that existing laws provide sufficient tools to pursue those who create or distribute AI-generated child sexual exploitation material.

• The court’s opinion suggests that while First Amendment protections remain robust, they don’t create a significant obstacle to prosecuting those who produce or distribute AI-generated child sexual abuse material.
• This case represents an early but significant precedent in how the legal system will address the intersection of generative AI technology and laws designed to protect children from sexual exploitation.