US judge ruled AI-generated child sexual abuse material is protected by First Amendment.

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1368970/judge-ruled-ai-generated-child-sex-abuse-material-is-protected-by-first-amendment

reason.com/volokh/2026/08/27/home-possession-of-ai-generated-porn-depicting-fake-children-remains-constitutionally-protected-seventh-circuit-rules/

Controversial opinion: If there is no real child whose likeness is used to produce the image, then there is no real victim. The art that is created is of the same quality as a drawing from imagination.

The other problem with illegalizing content on the basis of whether it’s CSAM is the eternal question of whether an unreal likeness can be said to even have an age. How would you be able to prove with certainty that an AI-generated likeness was below the age of consent? You would think it would be obvious, but there is a huge gray area here. If the protection weren’t fairly strong, I 100% guarantee that conservative Bible-thumpers would take advantage of the opportunity to ban all ai pornographic content, and then move on to real porn after that.

In addition, Banning AI material we might be able to interpret as CSAM does nothing to protect real children. There is no empirical proof that any kind of porn has a real, independent effect on people’s sexual behavior.

Edit with addendum: In addition, civil rights are a matter of principle. It doesn’t matter whether the presence of AI generated material makes the job of policing more difficult. The Bill of Rights was created to try to make sure that we don’t become slaves. Just because something is highly offensive to my own tastes doesn’t mean that the civil rights of the person who offends me disappear.

Arguing for the legal production of CSAM is fucked up, even if it’s by an AI.

Also the article specifically states:

AI-generated CSAM may also present other challenges not raised by the government in this appeal. For example, researchers have found that “a major dataset used for training image-generating AI contained hundreds of CSAM images.” Thus, unlike the virtual CSAM at issue in Free Speech Coalition, the market for AI-generated virtual CSAM images may impact the demand for actual CSAM on which the AI models can train.

You’re wrong. We absolutely can draw the line here. And yes, it does harm children. allowing people to create, possess, and distribute CSAM, even if it’s AI-generated, will influence peoples willingness to act on their urges in real life, with real children. It’s not a stretch to consider that linkage. What you’re arguing for is shameful and disgusting.

Some people say it cold help preventing acting on those urges, unfortunately there’s no definitive answer especially because it’s not an easy-to-test topic.

I’d argue that acting on those urges in any way would just encourage further action on those urges. There’s a reason alcoholics don’t drink zero-alcohol beers.

Who the fuck told you alcoholics don’t ever drink non-alcoholic beer? And more importantly why did you believe them?