A federal appeals court has ruled that the First Amendment protects the private possession of AI-generated child sexual abuse material in the home, provided the images do not depict a real, identifiable child. The 3-judge panel's decision conflicts with a portion of Wisconsin's 2024 law, creating a new legal precedent that defense attorneys can use to challenge possession charges while leaving production and distribution prohibitions intact.
The ruling came in the case of a La Crosse County man charged with using the open-source AI image generator Stable Diffusion to create thousands of explicit images of children. The court dismissed only his criminal charge for possessing the materials. He still faces prosecution for producing and distributing them.
Ben Sobel, a University of Wisconsin Law School professor, told WPR's "Wisconsin Today" that the decision is narrow. "It's by no means a get-out-of-jail-free card for the defendant," Sobel said. "The ruling is that the First Amendment prohibits the prosecution of or the criminalization of simple possession of obscene material in the home."
The distinction between possession and production
Wisconsin's 2024 law created a new crime for receiving, distributing, producing, or possessing obscene material that depicts a purported child engaging in sexually explicit conduct. The federal court's ruling only addresses the possession element. Sobel said the state law remains enforceable for all other aspects.
The court declined to extend First Amendment protection to production, creating an intentional tension. If someone is free to possess obscene media in the home, the logic might suggest they could also draw an obscene drawing in private. But the district judge limited the ruling to possession, citing the different technology involved and limited Supreme Court precedent.
"There remain many avenues for addressing this material that are outside the reasoning of this case," Sobel said. The ruling does not block enforcement of Wisconsin's law except where it concerns private possession in the home.
Real children versus AI-generated images
The court emphasized a critical factual distinction: the images in this case did not depict an identifiable child. The government conceded this point. Material that records an actual offense against a real, identifiable child receives no First Amendment protection, and possession of such material can be criminalized.
Sobel raised a practical concern about the proliferation of hyperrealistic AI-generated imagery. The flood of new material strains existing infrastructure for identifying and reporting child sexual abuse, including tip lines. A separate question is whether this kind of imagery makes it harder to prove cases against defendants who possess depictions of actual child sexual abuse.
Open-source AI and regulatory challenges
The case involved Stable Diffusion, an open-source image generator that is harder to control than proprietary applications. Companies with tighter control over their software can impose safeguards that prevent generating this kind of media. Open-source tools present a different problem.
"It's harder to control the sorts of stuff that it produces or that people can tweak it to produce," Sobel said. Enforcement becomes even more difficult when the people operating the software are outside U.S. jurisdiction.
For legal professionals tracking how courts handle AI for legal applications, this ruling clarifies the constitutional boundaries around virtual obscene material. The decision does not affect laws targeting distribution to minors or production, which remain prosecutable offenses.
Why this matters for legal professionals
This ruling establishes a circuit-level precedent that defense attorneys can immediately cite when challenging possession charges under similar state statutes. Prosecutors and legislators should review existing laws to ensure they do not rest solely on private possession prohibitions for AI-generated material that depicts no real child. The case also signals that courts will treat production and distribution as legally distinct from possession, even when the same defendant faces all three charges. Policy arguments grounded in downstream harms - such as grooming or encouraging abuse - may fare better in court than arguments based solely on the obscene nature of the material itself.
Your membership also unlocks:
