Court ruling sparks debate over AI-generated child abuse material

A recent ruling by a US federal appeals court has triggered renewed debate over how American law should deal with artificial intelligence-generated child sexual abuse material (CSAM), after judges found that an existing federal law could not be applied to punish the possession of certain entirely virtual images in a specific case.

The US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on August 25 affirmed a lower court decision in United States v Anderegg. The case involved AI-generated images depicting minors in sexually explicit situations. The government acknowledged that the images did not depict real children and could not be linked to any actual child.

Ruling limited to possession charge

The court held that the federal law prohibiting possession of obscene virtual CSAM was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant’s private possession of the material.

The judges relied heavily on earlier US Supreme Court decisions, including Stanley v Georgia and Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition. The court said those precedents constrained its ability to extend the law to entirely virtual images, even while acknowledging that modern AI technology has created challenges that earlier courts could not have anticipated.

Importantly, the ruling did not dismiss the other charges against the defendant. He had also been charged with producing and distributing the material and with transferring it to a minor.

AI technology creates new legal questions

The court noted that AI-generated images can now be highly realistic, raising difficult questions about the relationship between existing First Amendment precedent and rapidly developing technology.

A concurring opinion called for further guidance from the US Supreme Court, noting the significant advances in computer-generated imagery since the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling in 2002.

The decision could therefore become part of a wider legal debate over whether existing laws adequately address AI-generated CSAM and how lawmakers and courts should respond to increasingly sophisticated generative technology.