Appeals court delivers unsettling ruling — and says Supreme Court left it no choice
A federal appeals court ruled that longstanding Supreme Court precedent protects the private, in-home possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material when no real child was involved in its creation. The Seventh Circuit said it was bound by a 2002 decision on fictional sexual depictions of children, while warning that modern AI has made the distinction increasingly difficult and may require Supreme Court reconsideration.
The ruling upheld dismissal of one possession charge against Wisconsin resident Steven Anderegg, whom investigators said had hundreds of AI-generated explicit images of children; three other charges, including production and distribution, remain. The Justice Department argued that obscene virtual material should be prohibited, but the court noted that existing law generally protects private possession of obscene content and treats material involving real children differently because its creation exploits victims.
- Court says 2002 precedent protects private possession of purely AI-generated material.
- Judges warned AI may have outpaced the Supreme Court’s legal framework.
- Other charges against the defendant remain in place.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the ruling argue that constitutional protections cannot depend on how disturbing speech may seem, particularly where no real child was involved or harmed in producing it. They contend that the court correctly followed binding Supreme Court precedent distinguishing fictional depictions from material created through child exploitation, while leaving lawmakers and the Supreme Court to decide whether AI’s new capabilities justify a revised legal framework.
The case against
Critics argue that AI-generated child sexual abuse material is sufficiently realistic and harmful in its effects that private possession should not receive the same protection as other obscene material. They maintain that such images can normalise sexual interest in children, fuel demand for related content and make it harder to identify real abuse imagery, and therefore believe the law should be updated to permit prohibition even when no identifiable child was used in creation.