US Court Shields Private Possession of AI Child-Sex Images, Igniting Outrage
In a decision that has sparked anger among child protection advocates and civil rights groups, a United States appeals court has ruled that a Wisconsin man cannot be prosecuted for privately possessing AI-generated images of child sexual abuse, so long as no real children were involved in their creation.
The ruling, handed down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, leans on decades-old Supreme Court precedents that protect the private possession of obscene material and distinguish virtual child sexual abuse material from images depicting actual children. But critics argue the decision fails to grapple with the realities of modern artificial intelligence, which can now produce images that are virtually indistinguishable from photographs of real children.
What Did the Court Decide in the Anderegg Case?
Steven Anderegg, 44, was charged with producing, distributing and transferring obscene visual depictions of minors, as well as possessing obscene AI-generated images. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of the possession count only, while leaving the other charges intact.
According to court documents, Anderegg allegedly used the AI model Stable Diffusion to create thousands of realistic images of minors, many of them nude or engaged in sexual acts. He also allegedly communicated with a 15-year-old boy, describing how he used the technology, and sent the boy several images via Instagram direct message.
Law enforcement became aware of Anderegg through a CyberTip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), after Instagram reported his account for distributing the images.
Why Did the Court Rule in Favour of Possession?
The appeals court said it was bound by earlier Supreme Court decisions. A 1969 ruling affirmed that individuals may possess material deemed obscene in the privacy of their homes. A 2002 decision extended legal protection to sexually explicit images depicting fictional children.
Because we conclude that Stanley and Free Speech Coalition control Anderegg's as-applied challenge... we must affirm, the court said.
The judges acknowledged having some concerns about applying these old precedents to AI technology, but stressed that only the Supreme Court can change the law.
What Do the Judges Say About AI and Child Safety?
The panel noted that advances in artificial intelligence have made AI-generated child sexual abuse images increasingly realistic and difficult to distinguish from images of real children. In a separate opinion, one judge said additional guidance from the Supreme Court would be helpful because AI-generated material is now virtually indistinguishable from material involving actual children.
What Charges Remain Against Anderegg?
The ruling does not end the criminal case. Charges alleging Anderegg produced, distributed and transferred AI-generated obscene images remain pending. The decision applies only within the Seventh Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.
The judgment deals solely with the limited issue of possession. It does not suggest that every form of conduct involving AI-generated child sexual abuse material is legally protected.
Why Does This Ruling Matter for South Africa?
While this is a US legal matter, it carries global implications. As AI technology becomes more accessible, countries around the world, including South Africa, must confront the challenge of regulating synthetic child sexual abuse material. The ruling highlights a growing legal gap: technology is evolving faster than the laws designed to protect children.
For South African lawmakers and child protection organisations, the message is clear. The time to act is now, before the law falls further behind the technology.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can AI-generated child sexual abuse images be prosecuted in the US?
Yes, but with limits. Producing, distributing and transferring such images can be prosecuted. However, under current Supreme Court precedent, private possession of AI-generated images that do not involve real children is protected.
Does this ruling apply across the entire United States?
No. The decision applies only within the Seventh Circuit, which covers Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Other federal circuits may rule differently.
Could the Supreme Court change this ruling?
Yes. The appeals court itself noted that only the Supreme Court can alter the precedents that guided this decision. A future case could prompt the high court to revisit the issue.
Photo: IOL