Appeals court: AI-made child sex abuse images can be legal to keep at home
A federal appeals court says old Supreme Court privacy rulings protect private possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse images that don't depict a real child — alarming local police.
What happened: The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the First Amendment protects a person's right to privately possess child sexual abuse material generated by AI, as long as it doesn't depict a real child. The case involves Steven Anderegg, a 45-year-old Wisconsin man indicted in 2024 after allegedly using a text-to-image AI model, with carefully crafted prompts, to create sexually explicit photo-realistic images of minors. He's accused of sending some of the images to a minor over Instagram, and separately faces state charges of first-degree child sexual assault in La Crosse County.
Why it matters: This is one of the first appellate rulings to test whether AI-generated abuse imagery gets the same free-speech shield as other private, victimless material. It directly conflicts with how Wisconsin and other states have rewritten their laws to cover 'purported' children — realistic-looking AI images even when no real child was used. Local officials warn investigators often can't tell a real photo from an AI one, meaning real victims could go unprotected if prosecutions stall on this technicality.
How it works, plainly: Judge John Lee's opinion leaned on two older Supreme Court cases: Stanley v. Georgia (1969), which said people can possess obscene material privately at home, and Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), which struck down a law banning 'virtual' child pornography because no actual child was harmed in making it. The court said it was bound by that precedent even though the judges said they had 'misgivings' about applying it here, since the images were AI-made, not drawn or computer-rendered like the 2002 case involved.
The rollout: Wisconsin's sheriff and a state senator who helped write the tougher 'purported child' law say they'll keep charging people under the state statute regardless of the federal ruling, since it doesn't directly strike down state law. But a public defender noted the decision could still shape how state courts view similar statutes. Expect other circuits, state legislatures, and possibly the Supreme Court to weigh in as more AI-CSAM cases surface nationwide.