03-21-2025, 05:15 PM
Court Rules That Constitution Protects Private Possession of AI-Generated CSAM | TechPolicy.Press
From the court document:
"Anderegg isn’t charged with the production, distribution, or possession of child pornography as that term is used under federal law, because the charged images at issue aren’t of real children. Rather, they were generated through Stable Diffusion, AI software that generates images in response to text prompts. The charges here rely on the theory that the images constitute obscenity, which generally lies beyond the scope of the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 492 (1957). But the First Amendment generally protects the right to possess obscene material in the home, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), so long as it isn’t actual child pornography, Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111 (1990). These basic principles guide much of the analysis that follows. The court will deny Anderegg’s motions to suppress evidence from the search warrants, because the warrant application described the images and the context in which they were found with enough detail to establish probable cause for obscenity offenses. The court will dismiss the possession-of-obscenity charge following Stanley, but it will deny the motions to dismiss the other counts for reasons explained below "
LOOKS LIKE ILLINOIS MIGHT BE FUCKED!!!
From the court document:
"Anderegg isn’t charged with the production, distribution, or possession of child pornography as that term is used under federal law, because the charged images at issue aren’t of real children. Rather, they were generated through Stable Diffusion, AI software that generates images in response to text prompts. The charges here rely on the theory that the images constitute obscenity, which generally lies beyond the scope of the First Amendment. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476, 492 (1957). But the First Amendment generally protects the right to possess obscene material in the home, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), so long as it isn’t actual child pornography, Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 111 (1990). These basic principles guide much of the analysis that follows. The court will deny Anderegg’s motions to suppress evidence from the search warrants, because the warrant application described the images and the context in which they were found with enough detail to establish probable cause for obscenity offenses. The court will dismiss the possession-of-obscenity charge following Stanley, but it will deny the motions to dismiss the other counts for reasons explained below "
LOOKS LIKE ILLINOIS MIGHT BE FUCKED!!!